Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

CHAPTER TWO

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective: Great Expectations vs Reality F.A.O. Camargo*,1, L.S. Silva†, G.H. Merten{, F.S. Carlos*, P.C. Baveye§, E.W. Triplett¶ *Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil † Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil { Large Lakes Observatory, Swenson College of Sciences and Engineering, Duluth, MN, United States § Unit
e EcoSys, AgroParisTech, Universit
e Paris-Saclay, Thiverval-Grignon, France ¶ University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States 1 Corresponding author: e-mail address: [email protected]

Contents 1. Introduction 2. In the Beginning: Creation of Brazil and Its Agriculture 2.1 Agriculture in a Semi-industrialized Country (1500–1950) 2.2 The Green Revolution and Transformation of Brazilian Agriculture (1950–1990) 2.3 Modernization and Global Scientific Agriculture (1990–Today) 3. Information, Research, and Development 3.1 Origin of and Scientific Approach to Agriculture 3.2 State Organizations of Agricultural Research 3.3 Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) 3.4 Teaching and Research in Agricultural Sciences in Brazil 3.5 Investment in Science and Technology in Agricultural Sciences 4. Agriculture and Environment 4.1 The Natural Resources Course 4.2 Amazon: Many Buyers, One Owner 4.3 Economic Interests 5. Great Expectations vs Reality 5.1 The world’s Expectations of Brazilian Agriculture 5.2 The Reality—A Tough Field to Plow 6. Concluding Remarks 7. Plea for an National Agricultural Policy (NAP) References

Advances in Agronomy, Volume 141 ISSN 0065-2113 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2016.10.003

#

2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

54 56 56 58 62 64 64 66 70 72 74 76 76 78 80 84 84 88 106 110 111

53

54

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

Abstract Agronomists in most parts of the world are already, and will be increasingly in the next couple of decades, solicited to resolve pressing issues associated with global climate change and food security. For a number of reasons, it is most likely that in both of these areas, their research will be very tightly linked to what happens in Brazil. In that context, this chapter attempts to offer as complete a picture as possible of the events and influences that have shaped historically both Brazilian agriculture and its agricultural research efforts, as well as their relationships with other sectors of Brazilian society. An account is provided of the history of Brazilian agriculture and of the initially slow, then extremely rapid development of the agricultural research sector. This chapter also analyzes in detail the present contributions of agriculture to the economic and social consolidation of Brazil, describes the main actors of research and technological development, discusses the effect of agricultural production and expansion on the environment, tries to identify the various forces that are influencing Brazilian agriculture in the future, and lists the main challenges that will have to be faced in the future of Brazilian and world agriculture. Throughout the chapter, we try to make clear how Brazilians interpret as half-truths a number of statements commonly made about Brazilian agriculture, and how they see their agriculture evolve in the foreseeable future, with a discourse that often differs substantially from the one commonly put forth by the media or even scientists elsewhere in the world. This analysis results in the description of a proposed national agricultural policy that attempts to move Brazilian agriculture in the right direction within the context of the nation’s economy.

1. INTRODUCTION In the next couple of decades, research in agronomy and its practical applications are likely to be profoundly influenced by two major external forces. One of them is the need for agriculture to continue adapting to steadily changing climatic conditions; in many parts of the world, because of warmer temperatures, dryer weather, or less frequent but more intense rainfall events, it is already clear that agriculture can no longer be carried out the way it was two or three decades ago. Relatively quickly, researchers will have to devise resilient agricultural practices that will be able to accommodate the forthcoming environmental and climatic changes. A second external force, which is perhaps characterized by even more urgency than the first, is related to the need to feed the estimated 8 billion people who will live on earth in 2024, climbing to more than 9 billion by 2050. To feed a population of that size, estimates are that food crop production will have to increase by at least 50%, if not even by more than 100%, during the next 30 years, a challenge made particularly daunting by the fact that crop yield

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

55

increases have stagnated or even declined over the last decade. There again, researchers are expected to design strategies that will be able to deliver the required food. In the globalized effort that is underway to address these major societal challenges, Brazilian science is already having a significant impact. Even though they had a very modest size a mere 30 years ago, Brazilian research institutions and universities have since grown considerably, and now employ thousands of highly qualified individuals, many of whom work on agricultural issues. The scientific output of these researchers, published in ever larger numbers in international periodicals, has been steadily gaining recognition over the last two decades and is increasingly influencing debates worldwide. As these trends continue, Brazil’s scholarly production is anticipated to influence more and more the direction that research in agronomy will take in the foreseeable future. At the same time, the remarkable recent increases in productivity of Brazilian agriculture, and the potential that it presents for still further gains in yields (in part because climate models predict that water resources will remain relatively more available for agriculture in Brazil than in many other regions), are raising hopes that, thanks to Brazil, the food security challenges to be faced in the rest of the world will not be as daunting as they appear at the moment. Increasing production needs in terms of fiber and energy may also be partially answered by the agricultural sector in Brazil. At the same time, environmentalists in industrialized countries, and a number of government and international agencies, counter this upbeat outlook with claims that the deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon required to substantially increase agriculture production in Brazil would have devastating effects on climate change everywhere, and they recommend that pressure be exerted on the Brazilian government to stop deforestation by all means possible. Where the resulting tug of war between, on one side, worries about food, fiber, and energy security and, on the other side, climate change concerns concludes within the next decade is likely to significantly influence the expectations society will have of the agricultural sector around the world, and therefore will determine the conditions under which crop and soil scientists will have to frame their work. In this general context, the writing of this chapter has been motivated by the viewpoint that it is worthwhile for the benefit of everyone, not just for that of agronomists in South America, to present as complete a picture as possible of the events and influences that have shaped the history of Brazilian agriculture, agricultural research, and their relationships with other sectors of

56

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

Brazilian society. A key objective of the chapter, in addition, is to analyze in detail the often conflicting forces that are pulling agriculture in different directions and to draw objective suggestions for future policies. The final purpose of this chapter, but by no means the least, is to provide an overview of how Brazilians see their agriculture evolve in the foreseeable future, and which national agricultural policies (NAPs) should be implemented to move Brazilian agriculture and the national economy in the right direction.

2. IN THE BEGINNING: CREATION OF BRAZIL AND ITS AGRICULTURE 2.1 Agriculture in a Semi-industrialized Country (1500–1950) When Brazil was “discovered” by the Portuguese, the Crown was hoping for news about riches in gold and precious stones, as had been the case in the territories conquered by the Spaniards. As no riches were found initially, the Crown had to find solace in a written report, indicating that at least the land was fertile and well suited for cultivation. Nevertheless, Portuguese settlers relatively quickly started viewing the potential of the new colony exclusively in terms of logging. Rapidly, the association of Brazil with wood became so tight that the name of the country was coined in honor of the Brazilwood tree (in Portuguese Pau-Brasil—Caesalpinia echinata Lam.). For the two centuries that followed colonization of Brazil, the country supplied wood to satisfy the almost insatiable demand for it in the British and Portuguese empires, where it was used to construct ships and feed furnaces for weapon production. To keep the colonialist/imperialist machine going, entire forests were destroyed all over the world (Vogt et al., 2007). After the exploitation and almost complete extinction of Brazilwood (probable trigger of deforestation of the Atlantic Forest in Brazil), colonists initiated the first phase of agricultural exploitation in the country, which was based on sugarcane. Thanks to the local administration and the sugar demand in Europe, the Portuguese colony in Brazil was the first example of a successful commercial operation in the colonies that went beyond the focus on wood/metal exploitation established and consolidated by Europeans everywhere else in the colonies. This development was based on the Portuguese experience of the use of this crop on its islands and attracted the interest of the British, French, and especially the Dutch, who invaded the colony and established a commercial competition with Portugal for the sugar production (Nicholls, 1970).

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

57

The competition and demand for more agricultural areas established the need to move into the heartland of the colony to increase the production of sugarcane and other consumer goods to keep the system operating. Among these goods, the high demand for meat stood out, to such an extent that the Portuguese crown prohibited land use for sugarcane, in order to expand animal husbandry instead. As a result of the land inward trend, the occurrence of gold and other mineral sources was discovered and agriculture was no longer the main economic pillar of the colony. In the early 19th century, Portugal used gold to pay off its debt to England and the mines were nearly exhausted. Once again, agriculture became the largest economic sector of the colony, with the production of tobacco and cotton to supply the American market while at war with England (1812), and by the revival of the sugar industry, as a result of the French revolution and the revolt of the slaves in the sugar-producing colonies on Haiti. In addition, the Napoleonic wars provoked the flight of the Portuguese crown from Brazil, leading to a stimulus of diversification and improvement of the local economy (Camargo et al., 2010). At this time, the Brazilian economy continued as in the colonial period, administered by the aristocracy and based on slave labor. England considered this competition unfair and intervened to end the African slave trade to Brazil. Meanwhile, American agriculture, also based on slavery, was more efficient in the production of cotton, rice, tobacco, and even sugarcane. Since the economy was centered on a few agricultural products and the production system was at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the world, coffee came to account for 64% of the Brazilian exports, leading the country in the late 19th century to produce 60% of the coffee consumed worldwide. As a consequence of the reliance of the economy on agriculture and monoculture, Brazil grew without significant development until the late 19th century. The success persisted as long as the natural resources lasted, but without investments in research and technology, it was not possible to compete with the new markets developed under the Calvinist doctrine in America (Nicholls, 1970). The underdevelopment of agriculture was partly explained by the predatory attitude of the European settlers. In addition, industrial activity in Brazil was banned in the mid-19th century to prevent competition with Portugal and the manufacturing of almost everything was declared illegal. At the end of the century, the country was seeking an economic policy model and saw in the American protectionism a way to stimulate the national industry. With the economic and industrial expansion in the

58

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

southeastern region (mainly Sa˜o Paulo), the still low-tech agriculture turned to export products. Coffee production quadrupled in the first 20 years of the 20th century and, despite the global economic depression and a decline in prices, coffee became the main export product in 1950. In that year, agriculture accounted for 24% of the GDP, backed by scientific and technological support of state research centers mainly in Sa˜o Paulo, clearly demonstrating that the development and expansion of agriculture are not recent or occurred only in the last 30 years, as suggested recently (Martha et al., 2012).

2.2 The Green Revolution and Transformation of Brazilian Agriculture (1950–1990) In spite of the contribution of agriculture to the Brazilian economy in the mid-20th century, the cultivation destined for the overseas market was also reflected locally in an external dependence on food supply for the population, which, in the 1950s, represented on average 25% of imports (Table 1). Agricultural areas were eight times larger than the arable areas during this period and the rural population was larger than the urban one (Table 1). The abundance of land and of nontechnical and cheap rural labor force, and the latifundiary agrarian structure in the late 1950s partly explain the technological stagnation of agriculture at the time (Santos, 1988). Changes were necessary to adapt to the growing population, urbanization, food demand, the boom in industrial activities, and the reduction in the economic importance of agriculture in the GDP (Table 1). This national state of affairs and the technological productivity model inflicted by the green revolution in the world triggered a transformation of Brazilian agriculture, subsidized/ induced by the State. The need for investment in inputs, machinery and technologies, and adaptation of the packages developed for temperate agriculture, seeking greater productivity, served as guidelines for the shift from the traditional to the current form of agriculture. This transformation was also backed by the support of a new industrial vehicle fleet and by the arrival of multinational companies producing modern inputs such as tractors, pesticides, and fertilizers. In 1940, there were 3380 tractors in the country, while in the 1950s this number was 10 times larger, and it grew to 100 times larger by the 1980s (Table 1). Fertilizer use also increased remarkably in the last 50 years, as well as that of pesticides and other inputs. In fact, industry began to determine the direction and modernization of agriculture with rapid changes caused by direct state interventions. Agriculture came to be determined by a pattern of industrial accumulation,

Table 1 Indicators of Brazilian Agriculture Activities in the Last Six Decades Indicator Name/Decade 1951–1960 1961–1970 1971–1980

1981–1990

1991–2000

2001–2010

2011–2012

Population (million)

61.2

85.5

109.7

137.4

163.2

186.7

197.8

Rural population (% of total population)

54.45

48.48

38.78

29.80

22.05

17.04

15.26

Food imports (% of merchandise imports)

25.02

14.43

8.73

9.14

9.61

5.19

4.65

Agricultural land (million ha)

160.24

173.34

213.31

233.23

255.18

270.23

275.03

Arable land (million ha)

23.91

28.61

41.79

48.28

55.57

66.7

71.93

Area of cereal production (million ha)

7.83

13.87

19.39

20.85

18.42

19.31

19.38

Permanent cropland (% of land area)

0.76

0.74

0.80

0.77

0.88

0.86

0.84

Forest area (million ha)

—

—

—

574.83

558.94

530.29

517.32

Protected terrestrial areas (% of total land area)

—

—

—

4.70

11.86

23.87

26.26

Land reform distribution (million ha)

—

—

—

—

4.73

5.25

1.11

Cereal production (million metric tons)

—

18.72

26.81

36.45

44.31

64.95

83.76

Cereal yield (kg/ha)

1282.29

1352.05

1380.11

1743.60

2420.40

3356.18

4318.05

CO2 emission from rural areas (million TgCO2 equiv.)

—

—

—

1392

1989

1787

1187

CO2 emission from land and forest use — (million TgCO2 equiv.)

—

—

815

1354

923

263 Continued

Table 1 Indicators of Brazilian Agriculture Activities in the Last Six Decades—cont’d Indicator Name/Decade 1951–1960 1961–1970 1971–1980 1981–1990

1991–2000

2001–2010

2011–2012

CO2 emission from agriculture (million TgCO2 equiv.)

—

—

—

303

327

397

401

CO2 emission per capita (metric tons per capita)

—

0.71

1.04

1.37

1.65

1.91

2.02

Agricultural machinery, tractors

34,858

118,877

334,031

660,526

783,432

791,795

812,477

Fertilizer consumption (kg/ha of arable land)

—

24.2

50.55

75.12

91.34

137.31

145.66

Freshwater use for agriculture (% of annual TFW)

—

—

—

—

60.93

58.18

54.59

Employment in agriculture (% of total employment)

36.73

32.55

29.82

26.50

17.80

25.43

15.30

Agricultural raw material exports (% of merchandise exports)

15.09

13.68

5.32

3.31

3.86

3.90

3.66

Agriculture, value added (% of GDP)

22.88

16.01

12.56

10.15

6.62

6.05

5.35

Agribusiness (% of GDP)

—

—

—

—

24.86

23.84

22.14

Expenditure in research and technology (% of GDP)

—

—

—

0.73

0.96

1.38

1.34

Researchers (per million inhabitants)

—

—

—

347.33

430.58

703.12

705.09

Scientific articles (all sciences)

—

—

—

3.772

10.402

30.551

53.817

Scientific articles in agricultural sciences

—

—

—

894

1.260

5.040

8.503

Results expressed as annual averages. Data from World Bank, The Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics—IBGE; SCImago Journal & Country Rank, FAOSTAT; INCRA; CEPEA/USP; MCTI.

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

61

supported by agroindustrial complexes or agrosystems, and large corporations in control of the production process (Elias, 2006). Short-sighted government policies targeting foreign markets meant prioritizing large and medium producers, since these would be better able to absorb new technologies and respond faster to government incentives (rural credit system, minimum prices, rural extension, subsidies, etc.) (Santos, 1988). The decline in rural labor employment and the consequent unemployment in rural areas were one of the results of the technological support provided in the form of machinery and inputs for production (employment in agriculture—Table 1) and the logic of labor and capital were integrated in this modernization process. Immediate consequences were the rural exodus to the cities, a significant increase of the urban population (Table 1), demand for more food, increased poverty of small farmers, and the abandonment of polyculture. This process of social exclusion was more pronounced in the north and northeast, since the southern and southeastern regions benefited more from government policies (Pereira, 1999) encouraging the production of export cash crops (in particular soybean). Since things in Brazil usually settle down sooner or later, the agricultural transformation resulted in the coexistence of intensive with extensive systems, innovation alongside tradition, rich with poor. The agricultural model kept on developing in two opposite directions. At the center of this dichotomy was the State, its immediacy, and its exploitation of what was available (the agrarian, industrial, and economic model). In addition, modernization and common sense created the myth of the businessman farmer as an agent of transformation in agriculture. This farmer would mostly be an urban entrepreneur pursuing agricultural activities as if it were just like any other business activity. In fact, due to the lack of an adequate agrarian infrastructure, only the large and medium producers benefitted from the new policies to increase productivity and adapt to innovation supported by subsidies, rural credit, assistance, etc. Other authors mentioned investments in science and research, in particular in Embrapa (Beintema et al., 2010), as the key to the country’s agricultural transformation (Martha et al., 2012; Pereira et al., 2012; Scolari, 2006). These claims have had repercussions on nonscientists in the area in the country as well as abroad, who were unaware of the local structures of research and development (Matthey et al., 2004; Rada and Valdes, 2012; Spolador and Roe, 2013). This has spread misinformation and has downgraded other actors in Brazilian agricultural research to namelessness, or at least has minimized their role in the whole process.

62

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

In the 1980s and 1990s, two constraints have affected the dynamics of Brazilian agriculture and characterized the modernization process. The first occurred in the late 1980s, when the external debt internally determined a specific set of macroeconomic policies for agriculture. The second constraints materialized in the early 1990s, with the financial and economic integration within the globalization process. The industrial growth in the postwar period was abruptly interrupted by the external debt crisis and, consequently, by a drop in international investments and by higher international tax, interest, and inflation rates. Policies of recession and devaluation of the exchange rate in that period promoted export-oriented industries and the substitution of imports. The performance of Brazilian agriculture was better than that of industry, regardless of the crisis in the global agricultural market (1980–1984) that toppled the prices of agricultural commodities (Delgado, 2012). Motivated by the fear of domestic shortage, exchange policies of minimum prices and technologies made the development of the agricultural sector possible in the midst of an unfavorable economic environment. The other determinant in the modernization of Brazilian agriculture was a reduction in government control and financing of agriculture, greater trade openness, international access of local agricultural markets, surpassing the technological standard of the previous phase (green revolution—chemistry and mechanics), and establishment of new scientific standards (information and biotechnology), among other factors that initiated a new phase of Brazilian agriculture called global scientific agriculture (Frederico, 2013).

2.3 Modernization and Global Scientific Agriculture (1990–Today) The globalization of the world economy was reflected in the transformation and modernization of Brazilian agriculture. With the support of science and information, a production model was generated, termed by Santos (2000) the “global scientific agriculture.” This model rests on a global standard of economic production, with competitiveness as a main feature. The maintenance of competitiveness depends on significant increases in crop yields and therefore on science, technology, and information (Elias, 2006). Global scientific agriculture differs from the former agrarian pattern in the reduced direct role of the state in agricultural production (main focus shifted to logistics); predominance of agroindustries and trading companies in financing, input supply, and logistics; higher demand and centrality of resources; regional specialization in the production of agricultural

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

63

commodities; liberalization of markets and transfer of commodities; development of new technologies and science-based information; greater productivity; expansion of agricultural areas and concentration of land ownership; external dependence on price control and regulation; and functional specialization of the urban environment to meet the demands of the rural environment (Frederico, 2013). In global scientific agriculture, the pressure and demand of foreign markets lead to the inclusion of science, technology, and innovation for the production of inputs (seeds and chemical, mechanical and digital, etc., inputs) and of management systems (management, storage, processing, marketing, etc.). The scientific support for the modernization of Brazilian agriculture was provided by state research institutions created back in the 19th century, the implementation of graduate programs in agricultural science in 1961, and the foundation of Embrapa in 1973 as well as a number of other institutions. Examples of this support and of the technological advances enabled by the scientific output are related to research on acid soil management, symbiotic nitrogen fixation, insect biocontrol by natural enemies, and breeding of winter cereal varieties for acid soils, among others. Regardless of the considerable decline in the share of agriculture in the GDP over the last 60 years (Table 1), the commodity-based model persists, and there are now new elements of foreign trade, accounting for 40% of the exports. In terms of social, economic, and environmental advances, the technological evolution of agriculture and related areas has contributed to the nation’s development, in which agribusiness (commercial and family) accounted for 21.46% of the GDP and 34% of employment in 2015 (www.cepea.esalq.usp.br; accessed May 2016). The effect of these transformations was that within less than 40 years, the country shifted from being an importer to an exporter of food (Table 1). This had a direct impact on people’s daily lives because in the 1970s, almost 50% of a Brazilian’s salary was spent on food (Pereira et al., 2012). Scientific and technological advances, especially in the management of acid soils, made the agricultural use of more than 10 million ha of Cerrado possible (Lopes and Guimara˜es Guilherme, 2016). Over the past 60 years, the cultivated area in Brazil increased by 171%, while production increased by 467% and the productivity of cereal crops by 336% (Table 1). According to Tollefson (2010), plentiful sun, water, and land in Brazil create conditions for an agriculture that is not only sustainable but also prepared to meet the growing food demand on the planet. In this context, it is estimated that within 35 years, the country will be responsible for

64

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

producing 40% of the food that will be consumed by a world population of 9 billion people. In addition to the 58 million ha cultivated in 2016 (www. ibge.gov.br; accessed May 2016), the country has an agricultural reserve area of 103 million ha plus a potential of 70 million ha that can be made available by the intensification of animal husbandry (Sparovek et al., 2011). This area available for expansion, without requiring forest clearing, is associated with new cultivation and production techniques, enabling up to three harvests per year in some cases. All these changes could result in undesirable environmental impacts, e.g., a reduction in water quality due to sediment and pollutant transfer into water bodies. However, productivity gains through better soil management techniques already used by farmers, such as no-tillage systems, fertilization, and an efficient use of higher-yielding varieties, will allow the maintenance of large areas of natural ecosystems as conservation areas. Currently, almost 70% of the original vegetation cover of Brazil (517 million ha in 2012) is preserved, compared to an equivalent figure of only 0.3% in Europe, for example. Another favorable aspect of Brazilian agriculture is the efficient use of energy, since only 37% of the national agricultural production depends on fossil fuel consumption, and the energy matrix is one of the cleanest in the world (BRASIL/EPE, 2013). Another practical example of a good agriculture–environment integration is the use of no-tillage systems, which was used on only 180 ha in 1970 and today is adopted in nearly 30 million ha. With this system, not only is energy consumption significantly reduced, but, above all, erosion has dropped from 6 to less than 1 ton ha
1 year
1 (Bollinger et al., 2006; Merten and Minella, 2013). Under these conditions, nearly 200 million tons of grain was harvested in 2013, representing a 15% increase compared to the 2012 harvest, consolidating one of the most promising tropical agricultures on the planet.

3. INFORMATION, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT 3.1 Origin of and Scientific Approach to Agriculture An intensive activity of directed agricultural research on cotton in the country began back in the 1930s in the State of Sa˜o Paulo, with technologies and inputs that were modern then, supported by a financial investment that surpassed total research expenditures on hybrid corn in the United States (Ayer and Such, 1971). However, agricultural science and research in the country began in the early 19th century, with the goal of conserving and exchanging plant material and developing studies related to plant

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

65

acclimation. With the ban on slave trade in Brazil and soil depletion by sugarcane cultivation, agriculture lost competitiveness in the international market and, consequently, the agrarian oligarchy linked to the rural sector pressured the court (corresponding to the period of the second Brazilian empire), demanding measures. Inspired by the success of European agronomy promoted by the Experimental Stations, the Brazilian emperor Dom Pedro II created an agricultural institute in Bahia (Imperial Instituto Bahiano de Agricultura) in 1859, and, in 1887, the Experimental Station of Campinas, in Sa˜o Paulo. The first director of the station was an Austrian, Franz Josef Wilhelm Dafert, who directed research with emphasis on knowledge of soil plant nutrients and continuous fertilization, as well as basic research in soil chemistry and recommendations for fertilization (Camargo et al., 2010). Numerous other research institutions were created at this time and currently have new names and structures, e.g., EPAGRI (Agronomic Station of Rio dos Cedros, 1895), IAPAR (model farm of Ponta Grossa, 1912), and FEPAGRO (Seed station Alfredo Chaves in Veranopolis, 1919), among many other examples of local and regional agricultural research institutions. When the share of agriculture in the Brazilian economy began to decline in the 1950s, the short-term options to increase agricultural production were achieved by the expansion of cultivated land, without increasing productivity or, in the long term, investments in research. The new industrial agriculture was based on the use of fertilizers (such as lime to reduce acidity and phosphorus fertilization to raise the low levels of this element in the soil), mechanization to increase labor income, and the breeding of crops to increase yields. In the short run, the state played an important role in promoting the use of fertilizers, mechanization by subsidies, imports, and attracting foreign industries specialized in agricultural inputs and equipment. The adaptation of temperate-zone crops (e.g., wheat and oat) to tropical and subtropical climates required great research efforts and technological innovation. The knowledge underlying the new agricultural techniques was partly developed from the empirical knowledge of farmers (adaptations). However, much of the technological innovation resulted from organized research conducted mainly by public institutions and, in some cases, by private organizations, in particular those related to the cooperative sector (Pereira, 1999). A substantial part of the Brazilian development in the last two centuries was a result of the skills, products, and services, created and disseminated by public research organizations (Salles-Filho and Bonacelli, 2007).

66

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

This was not different for the agricultural sector, since agricultural research already occurred since the 19th century (through state research organizations), and was strengthened in 1961 by the implementation of the first graduate courses in the country as well as, more recently, by the foundation of Embrapa in 1973. These and other organizations constitute the National Agricultural Research System (SNPA) established in 1992.

3.2 State Organizations of Agricultural Research The State Organizations of Agricultural Research (Organizac¸o˜es Estaduais de Pesquisa Agropecua´ria—OEPAS) in Brazil corresponds to 22 entities, in 17 States (Table 2). Some of these have existed for over a century, others less than 30 years, and still others were restructured, but owe their origin to the beginning of organized agricultural research in their States. These 22 entities employ 2032 researchers (47% PhD) and 10,200 staff in 298 laboratories, at 239 experimental stations across the country. At present, 9685 experiments are underway, within the context of 2800 projects for research and technological innovation in agriculture and animal husbandry. The 2013 budget was of the order of BRL (Brazilian Real) 1.1 billion, and the organizations are governed by the National Council of State Systems for Agricultural Research CONSEPA (Conselho Nacional dos Sistemas Estaduais de Pesquisa Agropecua´ria/www.consepa.org.br) created in 1993, to supervise the development of State agricultural entities. These attend to the needs and sustainability of commercial farming, and they also strengthen family farmers, with a view to reduce rural social inequality and improve the quality of life for society as a whole. The historical merits, social gains, and support of the OEPAS are much farther-reaching than generally acknowledged. Underlying this contribution is meticulous work, closely in touch with the local and regional problems, based on the knowledge of the local heritage and the interchange with other local entities and segments in the same field, in the construction of the research programs. This direct relationship with the rural problems and the association of research with assistance consolidated the following pillars in the work of the OEPAS: (a) historical knowledge of regional reality; (b) constant dialogue with the local agricultural companies; (c) awareness of the importance of the family farming systems and interaction with their organizations; (d) technological integration in state programs for the development of agriculture, aiming at the technological autonomy of the states; (e) integration in the state systems for rural extension; and (f ) adequate institutional diversity for local conditions.

Table 2 State Organizations of Pesquisa Agrícola (OEPAS), Their Structure of Research, Marketing, Budget, and Main Activities in 2013 Units/ Laboratories Researchers Auxiliary Other Budget in (% Doctors) Staff Papers Publications Projects Others Millionsb Website Institution Creationa Centers (Libraries) South

FEPAGRO

1919

19

13(2)

87(76)

319

92

23

112

EPAGRI

1991

13

17(2)

842(15)

1322

155

357

102

IAPAR

1969

19

26(1)

120(89)

587

140

23

286

IAC/APTA

1887

15

7(1)

164 (88)

299

78

690

444

IB/APTA

1927

7

34(1)

108(56)

115

58

201

256

295 esc

67.86

fepagro.rs.gov.br

265.94

epagri.sc.gov.br

85.00

iapar.br

41.30c

iac.sp.gov.br

5.97c

biologico.sp.gov.br

Southeast

IEA/APTA

1942

2

0(1)

52(21)

76

10

65

18

943 var.

0.30

c

ITAL/APTA 1963

7

26(1)

92(65)

123

47

172

97

17.56

IP/APTA

6

4(1)

67(58)

84

45

139

37

3.23c

IZ/APTA APTA Reg

1969 1905 2002

9 34

5(1) 12(0)

42(71) 185(58)

138 610

40 150

136 457

139 428

APTA Estd

iea.sp.gov.br c

ital.sp.gov.br pesca.sp.gov.br

2.94

c

iz.sp.gov.br

1.52

c

aptaregional.sp. gov.br

225.68

PESAGRO

1976

9

13(2)

43(15)

234

20

27

15

26.6

pesagro.rj.gov.br

EPAMIG

1974

7

45(1)

166(60)

483

NI

27

15

110.00

epamig.br

INCAPER

1973

2

13(1)

79(56)

162

45

16

175

71.282 88.15

incaper.es.gov.br Continued

Table 2 State Organizations of Pesquisa Agrícola (OEPAS), Their Structure of Research, Marketing, Budget, and Main Activities in 2013—cont’d Units/ Laboratories Researchers Auxiliary Other Budget in Institution Creation Centers (Libraries) (% Doctors) Staff Papers Publications Projects Others Millions Website Mid-West

EMPAER

1964

9

4(2)

9(43)

545

8

17

21

30.139 54.09

empaer.mt.gov.br

AGRAER

1964

2

4(0)

21(66)

1

8

22

16

4.04

agraer.ms.gov.br

8(50)

175

NI

NI

10

14.93

agerp.ma.gov.br

6.79

unitins.br

NI

emdagro.se.gov.br

30.27

emepa.org.br

North

AGERP

2007

NI

NI

UNITINS

2004

4

18(1)

14(71)

18

4

28

67

EMDAGRO 1962

4

1(1)

8(33)

26

NI

NI

15

EMEPA

1978

9

11(2)

66(38)

261

27

14

45

EMPARN

1979

9

7(1)

43(47)

134

NI

NI

33

20.00

emparn.rn.gov.br

IPA

1935

13

15(1)

94(45)

61

NI

NI

155

NI

ipa.br

Total

21

200

273(23)

2310 (53)

5773

927

2414

2886

1072.12

4

Northeast

a

Year of the origin of agricultural research in the state and/or creation of the organization. Budget (staff + activity) of preference in 2013. Extra research resources (initiative, support, and federal agencies). d State budget for the six institutes and regional APTA. NI, not informed; esc, offices. b c

1

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

69

Some of the OEPAS are particularly noteworthy for their peculiar characteristics and their contribution to agricultural research in the country. The Agronomic Institute of Campinas (Instituto Agron^ omico de Campinas—IAC) is the oldest of these organizations and has 12 research centers and 3 support centers, with 164 researchers and 321 employees. The IAC is a part of the Sao Paulo Agency for Agribusiness Technology (Ag^encia Paulista da Tecnologia dos Agronego´cios), which monitors six agricultural research institutes. Over the course of nearly 130 years, the IAC has bred 1014 varieties of 66 different species and developed innumerable products and processes that stimulated agriculture in Sao Paulo State and across Brazil. In recent years, the IAC was authorized to offer graduate programs and the ongoing scientific publishing is intensive, with 75 published dissertations and further 395 studies underway. The Agricultural Research Corporation for the State of Santa Catarina (Empresa Pesquisa Agrı´cola do Estado de Santa Catarina—EPAGRI) is a mixed corporation, active both in research and in technical assistance and owes its origin to the Estac¸a˜o Agronomica de Rio dos Cedros (Agronomic Station of Rio dos Cedros) in 1895. It has 4 specialized research centers, 9 experimental stations, and 2 experimental fields, and for extension activities, there are 23 regional management offices that coordinate 13 training centers and 295 municipal offices. In 2014, 123,000 families were attended, and 3000 organizations in Santa Catarina. Another example of a regional research institution is the Agricultural Research Foundation of Rio Grande do Sul (Fundac¸a˜o de Pesquisa Agrı´cola do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul—FEPAGRO), founded in 1919 with the creation of the Seed Selection Station of Alfredo Chaves in Veranopolis, state of Rio Grande do Sul, and which was testing soybean seed varieties in that state as early as 1930. In 1950, the first highly efficient rhizobium strains were selected for inoculation of soybean plants. Presently, this generates annual savings of millions of dollars that would otherwise be spent on nitrogen fertilizers. These savings made soybean viable in Brazil. The foundation FEPAGRO has 22 specialized research centers throughout the State, and the Instituto Desid
erio Finamor, founded in 1904, stands out in particular. It has reference functions as a center for animal diagnosis for the Ministry of Agriculture, and for parasitology for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The production of vaccines for animals by this institute since 1946 is especially noteworthy (e.g., against bovine brucellosis, among many others), ensuring the general health of the national herd. This has led to the creation of a

70

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

master’s degree in Animal Health, making FEPAGRO the third state research organization in the country to be approved by the Ministry of Education, through the Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education—CAPES, to offer a graduate program. The Agronomic Institute of Parana´—IAPAR is another example of an OEPA, founded in 1972, which also works with the concept of food chains in its 19 research units and has developed 116 plant varieties, among which a rust-resistant coffee variety and varieties of high-yielding cassava are particularly noteworthy. It also carries out research on soil conservation, particularly the no-tillage systems. This is a brief description of the oldest OEPAS, among so many others, showing clearly that it is possible to do much, in anonymity, at a high standard, with limited resources, and solve problems at their source.

3.3 Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) Embrapa is a public company under private law, linked to the Ministry of Agriculture and Supply, whose mission is “to enable solutions through research, development and innovation toward sustainability in agriculture, for the benefit of the Brazilian society.” Its body of researchers with 2427 scientists (74% PhD) is distributed in 47 units across the country, supported by nearly 10,000 employees (www.embrapa.br; accessed May 2016). With an eclectic assembly because of the different areas of work, the majority of these researchers studied and obtained their doctorates in the graduate programs of Brazilian universities. In 2013, the budget of the company amounted to BRL 2.24 billion, a sum that has been increasing year after year; for instance, the investments in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s were of the order of BRL 245, 450, and 980 million, respectively (Alves and Oliveira, 2005). Historically, Embrapa was derived from the National Research and Agricultural Experimentation Department (Departamento Nacional de Pesquisa e Experimentac¸a˜o Agropecua´ria—DNPEA) of the Ministry of Agriculture and was created in 1973, taking over experimental stations and research projects previously run by DNPEA. In the early years, the institution’s work focused on applied research, with a view to complement the basic research done at the universities, described by Salles-Filho et al. (2000) as “a transfer of modern technologies.” In the 1980s, the corporation worked toward the modernization of agriculture as advised by the State and invested in facilitating the adaptation of technology in the field (machines and agrochemicals) and in the industrial processing of products, with heavy investment in the qualification of its researchers. It was only in the 1980s that Embrapa

71

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

began to focus research on generating new technology, with a view to becoming independent in this respect and better prepared to meet the demand for agricultural research in Brazil. The administrative headquarters for Embrapa are in Brasilia, but the work is carried out in Units of Research, Service, and regional Administration. The activities and results of Embrapa are detailed in annual reports and the wideranging marketing activities of the company. Some of the Embrapa units were created in 1974 and others are recent with less than 5 years in operation. Summing up a total of 47 units, 5 are described as Service (Coffee, Land Management, Technological Information, Products and Market, Plant Quarantine), 14 are dedicated to product research (Cotton, Rice and Beans, Goats and Sheep, Forestry, Beef Cattle, Dairy Cattle, Vegetables, Cassava and Tropical Fruits, Maize and Sorghum, Fishing and Aquaculture, Soybean, Swine and Poultry, Wheat, Grapes and Wine), 11 deal with basic research (Agrobiology, Agroenergy, Food Agroindustry, Tropical Agroindustry; Studies and Training; Agricultural Informatics, Instruments, Environment, Satellite Monitoring, Genetic Resources and Biotechnology, Soils), and 17 are ecoregional units (Acre, West Livestock, Agrosilvopastoral, Amapa´, Western Amazon, Eastern Amazon, Cerrados, Temperate Agriculture, Cocais, Mid-North, Pantanal, Southeast Livestock, South Livestock, Rond^ onia, Roraima, Tropical Semiarid, Coastal Tablelands). The distribution of these Embrapa and OEPAS units is shown in Fig. 1.

OEPAS Headquarter Units and experimentals stations

EMBRAPA Units

Fig. 1 Units and headquarters of State Organizations for Agricultural Research (OEPAS) and units of research, services, and products of EMBRAPA.

72

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

3.4 Teaching and Research in Agricultural Sciences in Brazil The education of human resources and the generation of knowledge by means of research in agricultural sciences are performed by the universities and the graduate programs. In Brazil, there are more than 400 undergraduate courses in this area, offered by over 60 universities with a total of 22,930 places annually. Approximately 25% of these have access to agricultural research through grant programs for scientific initiative that support the majority of the students of the Graduate National System (Sistema Nacional de Po´s-Graduac¸a˜o—SNPG). The graduate program in Agricultural Sciences stricto sensu was initiated in 1961, at the Federal University of Vic¸osa, Minas Gerais, and, every 3 years, the SNPG evaluates all these courses and publishes the results. There are now 361 programs in the area of Agricultural Sciences, led by over 5000 lecturers with doctorates, publishing an annual average of 13,500 scientific articles. These contributions are the result of research carried out by the new 1500 PhDs and over 4500 masters annually (Table 3). Among the so-called hard sciences, Agricultural Sciences have the greatest growth rate in doctoral graduations.

Table 3 Postgraduate Programs in the Areas and Subareas of Agricultural Sciences in the Country in 2013 Lecturers Theses Dissertations Areas/Subareas Courses (PhD) Articlesa Agricultural I

Agronomy

159

2363

12,695 (1.13) 2007

5262

Forest sciences

21

334

1523 (1.00)

357

995

Agricultural engineering 20

291

1467 (0.76)

302

993

Agrarian II

Veterinary medicine

57

949

10,817 (1.53) 865

2611

Animal husbandry and fishing

59

1020

8784 (1.03)

741

2248

Food science

45

626

5233 (1.37)

504

1515

Total

361

5543

40,519

4776

13,624

a Average Journal Citation Report. The numbers of articles, theses, and dissertations are the sum of the years 2010–2012. Data from http://www.avaliacaotrienal2013.capes.gov.br/; accessed December 2015.

73

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

Aside from the efficient and high-quality educational program, a noteworthy feature of the Agricultural Science Graduate Programs is the vertiginous growth in scientific publications. Currently, this area holds the second place in total number of publications, that is 15.3% of all papers published in the country, and the annual growth rate in articles has been over 50% since 2004. This area-specific growth has taken Brazil from the 21st to the 13th place in the world in 2014 in number of published contributions in the field of Agricultural Sciences (available at www.scimagojr.com; accessed May 2016). This unique performance in production of scientific knowledge in this area is also globally significant, since Brazil is presently fourth (Table 4) with 5,90% of the worldwide production, and 56% of the production emanating from Latin America. Most subareas are extremely well positioned, for example, Animal Science, which is second in the world ranking, and other fields fare similarly well (see Table 4). The H-index of Agricultural Sciences accounts for practically half of all the 27 areas in the country, and this science citation quality index is higher among the subareas, since their ranking is generally above the general position of the country (21st). The cited H-index values date

Table 4 Number of Articles Published, Citable Articles, and H Index of Production of Brazilian Science and Agriculture in 2012 and the Respective World Ranking in the Same Area Articles Citable H Areas and Subareas

Number

Position

Articles

Position

H

Position

All areas

59.726

13th

53.883

13th

379

21st

Agriculture

12.299

4th

10.186

3rd

160

21st

Animal science

2.575

2nd

2.464

2nd

57

19th

Crop science

2.062

3rd

1.988

3rd

63

17th

Plant science

1.879

4th

1.824

4th

77

21st

Soil science

665

4th

643

4th

70

17th

Horticulture

558

4th

554

4th

41

16th

Foresty science

546

5th

540

5th

67

14th

Entomology

502

3rd

482

3rd

48

9th

Data from http://www.scimagojr.com/index.php; accessed in May 2016.

74

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

from 2014, and as the articles are being quoted, they are expected to rise. These facts and figures are a practical proof of the efficiency in the academic formation of human resources (doctors and masters) and scientific productivity of the Graduate Programs in Agricultural Sciences in Brazil. At present, more than 90% of the Brazilian scientific production originates from the postgraduate programs of the public universities (Prado, 2008). Despite this production, it can be seen that 60% of the whole output is produced at only 7 of the 70 Brazilian universities, demonstrating centralization, but also a great potential for further growth toward a more efficient involvement of the other institutions of higher education in the generation of knowledge.

3.5 Investment in Science and Technology in Agricultural Sciences The investment of Brazil in Science and Technology has been constant, i.e., approximately 1.3% of the GNP (Table 1). In the worldwide investment ranking, the country has maintained the 10th position since 2012 (Battelle, 2013), which is equivalent to 31 billion dollars in 2013. Nevertheless, in comparative terms, this value is only 50% of that invested by South Korea and 7% of that of the United States. As far as Agricultural Sciences are concerned, investment has been considerable in recent years. In 2013, for example, Brazil invested BRL 5 billion in costs, research, and payment of personnel and grants (Table 5). The financing is mostly provided from public funds through federal support agencies (CNPq, CAPES, and FINEP) and state agencies (FAPESP, as well as 17 others not listed), from agricultural research companies, at the federal (EMBRAPA) or state level (OEPAS), as well as the universities (IES). In the private sector, investments and involvement in research are directed toward a particular crop or product, as in the case of sugarcane (COPERSUCAR), citrus fruits (FUNDECITRUS), soybean and cotton (MT Foundation), seeds (APROSMAT), and others not listed here. The Brazilian professionals in agricultural research are a group of almost 9500 scientists, of which those at Embrapa and OEPAS are full-time researchers. Those at the universities divide their time between research, lecturing, and tutoring and make up 53% of the total. As a general rule, this percentage is smaller than in other areas, where around 75% of the researchers in the country are at universities and in graduate programs.

Table 5 Investment (BRL $) in Research Funding and Staff in Agricultural Sciences in Brazil in 2013 by the Leading Sectors of Research Support and Activity Sources Cost Staff/Grants Total Researchers (% Doctors)

CNPqa

69.548.000,00

190.067.000,00

259.615.180,00

—

72.628.400,00

249.893.900,00

322.522.300,00

—

26.790.968,00

—

26.790.968,00

—

95.527.638,00

255.822.450,00

351.350.088,00

—

EMBRAPA

574.562.545,00

1.669.767.958,00

2.244.330.503,00

2.427 (74)

OEPASf

270.973.128,00

1.019.375.102,00

1.290.348.230,00

2.032 (47)

52.433.890,00

588.440.030,00

640.873.920,00

4.980 (100)

1.162.464.569,00

3.963.366.440,00

5.135.831.189,00

9.439 (82)

CAPES

b

FINEPc FAPESP

d e

PPGs Total a

g

Available at: www.cnpq.br/investimentos. Referente a 2012, available at: www.geocapes.gov.br. c Financing of the sectors of agrarian sciences: www.cnpq.br/investimentos. d Available at: balanc¸o p. 4, www.fapesp.br/5780. e Budget of the Union 2013. f Information Presidency CONSEPA. g Number of personnel involved  average salary  year. b

76

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

4. AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT 4.1 The Natural Resources Course Brazil is a country with abundant natural resources that can be converted into economic growth, but which prefers to adopt strict conservation policies, in marked contrast to all models of development of first-world nations that used their natural resources to consolidate their status quo. This is no plea for slower economic growth due to the relative abundance of resources (natural resources course or the paradox of abundance) but refers to the unending internal conflict between advocates of growth models and international market funding and the pressure of these groups to maintain things as they are. Countries whose economy is based on revenues generated by the export of natural resources (minerals, for example) create unfavorable conditions for other productive economic sectors of the nation (for example, the industrial and agricultural sectors) through an increase in exchange rates and wages. This is not the case with agriculture in Brazil, which is the only growing sector of the country, in terms of the intensive use of capital as well as of the international commodity prices (Spolador and Roe, 2013). Large-scale agribusiness currently accounts for 23% of the country’s economy, but nevertheless, the agricultural activity has been blamed for many of the environmental problems that deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil have supposed inflicted to the rest of the world (Martinelli et al., 2010). Although Brazilian agriculture is contributing significantly to the economic health of the country, it has been condemned by national and international groups as primarily responsible for deforestation and for the increase in CO2 emissions in the country. An analysis of the emissions of the population and amounts reported by the UN in 2012 (http://data.un.org/; accessed April 2016) suggests that the country is responsible for 1.4% (439 million Tg) of the global emissions, 12th in the ranking of countries, behind others that condemn deforestation in Brazil, as, for example, England (448 million Tg), Canada (485 million Tg), a competitor in the export of mineral resources, and the United States (5305 million Tg), a direct competitor in agricultural commodities. Recent CO2 emissions per capita in Brazil amount to 2.2 metric tons per capita (79th position in the world), compared to 16.7, 14.1, and 7.2 in the United States, Canada, and England, respectively. In recent years, the emission of greenhouse gases due to landuse change from forest to intensive cultivation (of soybean, for example) or pasture dropped to less than 10% of the emissions until 2006 (Table 1). Most

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

77

of this reduction is explained by the earmarking of productive and mostly already cleared areas for transformation into protected or indigenous reserve areas (Walker et al., 2009). This was one of the forms of external pressure against the expansion of agriculture in Brazil that, in less than 30 years (Table 1), resulted in the setting-aside of 290 million ha (twice the surface area of England) as protected areas. A recent study based on 6 years of remote sensing data estimated the degradation of 1788 protected areas in 19 countries of Latin America and found that degradation had increased by 250% in this period, which corresponds to an area of 1.09 million ha (Leisher et al., 2013). The strategy of delimitation of areas in the Amazon as a way of controlling deforestation (Walker et al., 2009) is not sufficient and suggests an interest in the preservation of mineral and energy resources as reserves for future exploration by international markets. Behind the new demarcations and deforestation controls are countless international ulterior motives, hidden from Brazil, while the national environmental legislation is applied to ensure these interests. The country has a long history of strict environmental legislation, going back to the 16th century, beginning with the protection of Brazilwood in 1600 that also happened to ensure the monopoly of exploitation by the Portuguese crown. This exploitation continued into the 19th century. The royal letters of 1797 represent the first forest code. It consolidated environmental laws and conservative judges, which, depending on the case, could even impose the death penalty to a person convicted of an environmental crime. This legislation, among many others developed after the arrival of the Portuguese crown and the empire established in Brazil, kept the vegetation cover preserved until the late 19th century. The recent deforestation in Brazil is associated with the colonization of the Amazon region, timber exploitation, and the expansion of agriculture. The Brazilian forest code was implemented in 1934, and already at that time, owners were forced to preserve 25% of the native forest cover on their estates. In 1965, this code was updated and further revised in 2012. In the latter revision, land owners are commissioned to be responsible for environmental preservation, maintaining protected areas defined as Permanent Preservation Area (APP: vegetation on slopes and hilltops, on riverbanks, and in watersheds for the protection of water resources, soil, and biodiversity) and/or as Legal Reserves (RL: area within the rural property to be preserved as shelter of representatives of the natural habitat). In practice, the application of the Brazilian Forest Code (CFB), seen as one of the strictest in the world, has proved difficult, particularly in remote rural areas. Under current circumstances, the CFB is most likely contributing very little to reduce deforestation in Brazil. On the other hand, the CFB

78

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

contains two important components, i.e., control of water erosion and river conservation. In the case of water erosion, the preservation of 20% of a Legal Reserve property exempts most erosion-sensitive areas from cultivation. The areas of permanent preservation (APPs), especially those along riverbanks (riparian environment), favor the preservation of the integrity of river systems, with positive impacts on the ecology of river systems and water quality (Merten and Minella, 2013). Deforestation is not a recent phenomenon and it is not unique to Brazil or the Amazon forest. Henry the VIII-th established the British Empire and his powerful navy at the expense of the kingdom’s oak, beech, and elm forests to build ships and feed furnaces to make weapons. The forests of Sussex were all destroyed for the construction of ships (about 2000 trees per ship) and for their repair (about 700 trees per ship). Almost the entire forested area southwest of the country was destroyed to build the British military power, establish the colonies and create the British Empire (Vogt et al., 2007). The destruction was so intense that Parliament later introduced bills for replanting and restoration of the forests as well as a series of rules that were not approved by Henry VIII. Curiously, King Henry VIII has been remembered as an environmentalist for the fact that, in 1543, he created laws to protect his forests, after having destroyed them almost completely. Once the local forests were protected, the empire was maintained by the destruction of the forests of the new colonies, conquered with new ships to maintain the colonialist Empire. Another more recent case of progress and empire building at the expense of deforestation and forest destruction is America. From the arrival of settlers until 1960, nearly 90% of the original areas of American forests were cleared in four stages of deforestation. The first clearing was the temperate forests of New England which lasted until 1915. The second stage of American deforestation was in the Great Lakes region (1860–1890). This was quickly followed by the third deforestation in the South (1880–1920) and continues on the West coast (1925–present). Subsequently, secondary forests grew on the abandoned fields. However, in the early 20th century, the ax became a symbol of American progress, inspiring the poem “Song of the Broad-Axe” by Walt Whitman, published in 1900 (Leaves of Grass).

4.2 Amazon: Many Buyers, One Owner From Europe come examples of environmental preservation, and an explicit pressure on Brazil to leave its forest untouched. However, the EU report on

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

79

deforestation present EU as the biggest driver of global deforestation of all industrialized regions and China for the period 1990–2008, accounting for 33% of the global deforestation during that period (http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/forests/impact_deforestation.htm; accessed April 2016). The European community was chiefly responsible for local deforestation and for enforcing the exploitation of ecosystems around the world to maintain their standard of consumption goods, food, and energy, resulting in 36% of all deforestation embodied in crop and livestock traded between regions. Currently, the boreal forest is the world’s largest (primarily in Russia and Canada) with 1.2 billion ha, double the area of the Amazon rainforest, with 566 million ha. In the Canadian and Russian boreal forests, 2 million ha are deforested annually. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the 11 countries with more than 2 million km2 (China, the United States, Russia, Brazil, India, etc.) have, on average, almost 9% of their territory as protected area. In 2015, Brazil has three times (29%) of its territory as protected area and 58% of forested area (493 million ha) as compared to the forested area of China (21.7%), the United States (31.5%), Russia (47%), and India (21%) (http://data.worldbank.org/; accessed June 2016). These observations do not justify Brazilian deforestation but clearly demonstrate what a number of authors have already pointed out (e.g., Radulovich, 1990), namely how ill-founded the corporate and commercial interests of the developed countries are, and how uncalled for their interference is with the management of territories and resources of others, trying to apply more sophisticated forms of predatory colonialism, than on their former possessions or than used to date in areas of strategic natural resources of the planet. So instead of being recognized for sustaining and conserving the forests, Brazil is being criticized by the major loggers of the world, which unfairly cast doubts on the country’s ability to manage its own land and natural resources. Deforestation in Brazil, unlike in other parts of the world, has generated no deserts, but instead has resulted in the most modern tropical agriculture on the planet, which is crucial for feeding the ever-growing human population around the world. After depleting their own resources for the development of their societies, modern industrialized countries set their focus on the planet’s reserves to maintain a high standard of living. International pressure to keep the Amazon forest intact has the effect of reducing Brazil’s influence on commodity prices. Meanwhile, Brazilian deforestation rates remain lower than in other parts of the world (Hansen et al., 2013). The Amazon basin contains biological and mineral assets worth an estimated quadrillion dollars,

80

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

as well as oil and gas reserves, which will be of strategic interest to humanity. The Amazon biome is considered megadiverse and concentrates around 30 million plant and animal species, 10–15 million insects, and innumerable habitats. There are reserves of minerals such as niobium, oil, and gas, and 13% of the world’s freshwater. The demarcation of indigenous lands and protected areas has been described as a form of Amazon conservation (Walker et al., 2009). The primary entitlement to lands traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples is acknowledged by the current constitution. This has been used by the local and international public opinion to justify the need for demarcation of indigenous areas and thereby mask private business interests (bioprospecting and mining, in particular). As soon as the demarcation becomes official, the Indians are abandoned, as in the case of the Yanomami reserve, one of the richest gold reserves on the planet. The foreign pressure for land demarcation was so great that a Pro-Yanomami Commission in the American Senate was summoned, which demanded more concrete actions of President G.H.W. Bush in relation to the Brazilian government, to accelerate the demarcation. Regardless of all opposition in the country, the former President Fernando Collor demarcated an area of almost 10 million ha for a little more than 17,000 Indians within less than 6 months after his visit to Washington, DC (Gomez, 2014). Agriculture is another case of international lobbying affecting the Brazilian economy and country. Numerous international organizations have been pressing for a reduction in deforestation or the demarcation of indigenous lands to prevent the expansion of cultivated areas and the production of international commodities, as is the case of lobbying by the NGO Focus on Sabbatical, or the more significant approaches made openly by the National Farmers Union and Avoided Deforestation Partners, with the sole purpose of protecting North American agriculture and farmers (Matthey et al., 2004). These authors mentioned that, as unlikely as it may seem, these situations already exist officially, in the form of overprotection of subsidies and foreign trade agreements to benefit the products and agriculture of developed countries. Likewise, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Economic Community artificially ensures competitiveness and protects its agriculture and farmers.

4.3 Economic Interests The Brazilian agricultural model, regardless of its qualities and deficiencies, lifted the country from the status of a food importer to that of one of the

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

81

major exporters of agricultural commodities and timber. While the production models of the main exporters (the United States and EU) are saturated (fully exploited potential) and are unable to expand production areas, Brazil has an enormous expansion potential, with a view not only to the availability of unexploited cultivation areas but also to improvements in technical and logistical efficiency. In other words, there are still a few million hectares that could be incorporated into the production process, without requiring forest land, but with abundant water and sun light, a sound technological base, experience, proper know-how for the production of biofuels, and the possibility of growing up to three crops per year. If the logistical capability were improved and the current limitations overcome, a second green revolution in terms of final production efficiency could begin in Brazil. If livestock production were intensified, Brazil could account for more than half of the world’s food production. Evidence that international concern regarding Brazilian environmental protection is primarily concerned with protecting the interests of Europe and North America is provided in the study “Farms here, Forests thereTropical Deforestation and U.S. competitiveness in Agriculture and Timber” (Friedman, 2012). The main conclusions of this report, commissioned by the National Farmers Union and Avoided Deforestation Partners, stated that: (a) agricultural operations and illegal and unsustainable logging in tropical regions are destroying tropical forests in the world, producing more carbon pollution than all the world’s vehicles and agricultural activities together; (b) the agricultural activity and wood extraction resulting from tropical deforestation diminish commodity prices and devaluate American agricultural and wood products, causing problems for American farmers and timber producers to keep their land and jobs; (c) until 2030, the protection of tropical forests through climate policies will increase the income of American farmers and wood producers by between 196 and 267 billion dollars; (d) the beef, timber, soybean, and vegetable oil producers in the United States are the main beneficiaries of tropical forest conservation; and (e) the protection of tropical forests by climate policy will also reduce concerns about the environmental impact of biofuels. With regard to the first item, the notion that Brazilian farming and logging are emitting more greenhouse gases than the overall emissions of all vehicles and agricultural activity in the rest of the world has no scientific support or basis. According to the latest data of the UN in 2012 (UNDATA), the country emits 1.4% (439 million Tg) of the world’s GHG emissions, i.e., less than 1/10 of the emissions in the United States (5305 million Tg), which account for one-fifth of global emissions. It is hard to believe that increased

82

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

farming and logging in the tropics would increase Brazil’s CO2 emissions more than 20-fold to match the United States’ CO2 pollution. The report quoted above clearly reveals the commercial interest of the North American farming and logging sector and the intention of financing a foreign policy that would urge the Brazilian government to reduce deforestation in its territory. The text makes it explicitly clear that an important motivation of these groups for forest preservation is economic, not environmental. The author forecasts, based on 2008 data and prices, that a 100% reduction in rainforest deforestation would boost the annual income of American farmers to over US$ 3 billion, while that of the loggers would reach nearly US$ 10 billion. A 100% reduction in deforestation in Brazil would benefit US soybean and beef cattle producers to the tune of up to US$ 120 billion between 2012 and 2030. Obviously, a reduced supply of Brazilian soybean and meat on the international market would translate into a rise in price of these commodities, and therefore the profits that the North American agricultural sector could make producing them would rise. Apparently, the main beneficiaries of this clash between Brazilian and American agribusiness are large corporations (trading companies) that sell inputs (seeds, pesticides, fertilizers, tractors, and equipment) to both sides, buy and finance the production in advance and guarantee their profits on the basis of control and dependence of the two producing nations. With the decrease of state rural credit, owing to the economic crises in the late 20th century, Brazilian agriculture began to be financed by private capital, as in other parts of the world. Currently, multinational companies such as Cargill, Bunge, and ADM are the largest exporters of agricultural products in Brazil, operating in various segments of the agricultural industry, dominating the capital and controlling production, producers, territory, and exports, and steering in the opposite direction to that of food sovereignty of the country (Matos and Salazar, 2011). Another evidence that the economic interest overrides the environmental in terms of international pressure and concerns about how Brazilians ought to use Brazilian territory is provided by the issue of demarcation of indigenous lands and protected areas. In recent years, 290 million ha were delimited as Indian reserves or conservation areas superimposed exactly on the Amazonian (Brazilian) crystalline shield covering the main mineral reserves of the country and perhaps of the world (Fig. 2). Apart from rare earth elements, which are by and large a Chinese monopoly, there are other rare minerals. For example, Brazil owns 98% of the world’s known reserves of niobium. Coincidentally, on the 170 million ha of public lands where no mineral reserves are found (Fig. 2), and the vegetation is relatively well

83

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

N W

E S

Indian reservation Permanent UC Sustainable UC Gold Tin Aluminum Lead Zinc

Iron Manganese Copper Niobium Nickel

Tungsten Thorium Oil & gas Uranium Diamonds

Fig. 2 Interpolation of indigenous reserves and protected areas in the Amazon and the main metallic, nonmetallic, and energy minerals. UC, conservation unity. Indigenous and protected area data from Brazilian Institute for Geography and Statistic—IBGE: http:// www.ibge.gov.br/home/; and minerals from Geological Survey of Brazil—CPRM: www. cprm.gov.br.

preserved, there happens to be no international pressure for the demarcation of indigenous lands. A more detailed analysis of these international attempts suggests that other (particularly economic) interests may be indirectly associated with these pressures, for example, international mining companies that dominate the current and future mining markets, pharmaceutical industry, bioprospecting, and biopiracy activities among others. Analysis of international funding in the Amazon reveals that 1.34 billion dollars was invested between 2007 and 2013 and 51% was used mainly by funding legislation, police, compliance, enforcement, and payment of environmental services (De La Mata and Riega-Campos, 2014). Less than 4% of funding from all sources directly supports projects related to drivers of deforestation, only 6.3% to indigenous land management, and 7.5% to the local livelihoods. Despite the logic of these arguments, some opinion leaders, journalists, scientists, and local groups call them weak and insinuate that Brazil has been irresponsible in the administration of the Amazon territory and that the

84

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

“new forest code” will stimulate deforestation. The hysteria and simplemindedness of the new arguments to disqualify facts are actually part of conspiracy theories, of old development models, and of the power of the landowners and other woolgathering, going as far as to suggest an internationalization of the Amazon. This biased and unqualified media coverage is backed by some environmentalist and indigenous NGOs masked as research institutes, administered by technocrats disguised as scientists, who are sponsored by countries, kingdoms, embassies, ministries, state departments, multinational corporations, mining companies, and banks interested in maintaining the status quo. This is the environment of our agriculture, and, in spite of being the only growing economic sector of the country and the only concrete outlook on feeding the world in the coming decades, it is becoming increasingly difficult to convince the public that conservation without development is an oxymoron. The price to keep Brazilians playing the role of the world’s gardeners (carbon credits) must be reappraised, since the development of the country may no longer be stalled, or its resources be the target of global financial speculation.

5. GREAT EXPECTATIONS VS REALITY 5.1 The world’s Expectations of Brazilian Agriculture Worldwide, 38% of the Earth’s surface is currently used for agriculture and 75% of this area is devoted to animal husbandry. Seventy percent of the freshwater is used in irrigation for grain and animal protein production and 30–35% of the GHG emissions come from agriculture. Still, there are nearly 1 billion hungry people and almost 3 billion without a sufficient daily supply of protein and calories (Lal, 2013). Food insecurity is aggravated by the threat of climate change and high levels of food prices, as exemplified in particular by the financial crisis of 2008, which is likely not to be an isolated occurrence. Recently, the protests known as the Arab Spring coincided with an increase in food prices, higher than in 2008 (Lagi et al., 2011; FAO Food Price Index). In relation to food consumption, despite the declining population trend, consumption will increase, especially in developing countries where the population will grow more, and also by improvements in social conditions, resulting in increased consumption (Godfray et al., 2010). In this global framework of a high food demand vs limited resources and inputs, global agriculture will have to produce more with less, under adverse weather conditions and water stress (Bruinsma, 2009). In the case of developing countries, the potential increase in productivity (yield gap) by an adequate use of materials and techniques (technological gap) is still very

85

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

large. In tropical areas where expansion or a reduction of these gaps is still possible, Brazilian agriculture can contribute with experience and expertise. The transformation in Brazilian agriculture from the 1960s onward is part of one of the greatest achievements of global agriculture, although the challenges to feed 9 billion people in the next 40 years will be incomparably greater. Brazil is expected to occupy a strategic position in food production since the agricultural area can be greatly expanded without destroying forests. There are technological and productivity gaps, which can result in doubled production. The deficient logistics also represent a great potential to increase efficiency and production by reducing losses (FAO, 2007). With regard to the use of Brazil’s territory and potential area for expansion, recent surveys of the 2006 Agricultural Census (IBGE, 2006) provide the so far latest official information in the country. This survey shows that nearly half of Brazil’s territory, in the form of forests and reserves, is legally protected (Table 6). The area of agricultural production in Brazil Table 6 Current and Potential Land Use + Brazilians in Million Hectares Current Use Potential Use Land Use

Total

%

Total

%

Total area

851.488

—

851.488

—

Earth

835.556

100.00

835.556

100.00

Water

15.932

—

15.932

—

Agricultural area

284.233

34.02

321.000

38.42

Annual crops

49.233

5.89

84.560

10.12

Permanent crops

15.000

1.80

16.640

1.97

Permanent pasture

220.000

26.33

220.000

26.33

Forests and protected areas

410.000

49.07

430.000

51.46

Amazon

350.000

41.89

350.000

41.89

Cultivated forests

5.000

0.53

15.000

1.80

Protected areas

55.000

6.58

65.000

7.78

Other uses and areas of expansion

141.323

16.91

84.556

10.12

Other uses

38.000

4.55

40.000

4.78

Agricultural reserve area

103.323

12.36

44.556

5.33

Modified from Scolari, D.D.G., 2006. Produc¸a˜o agrı´cola mundial: o potencial do Brasil. Ver. Fund. Milton Campos. No. 25, Brası´lia, DF, 86 pp, based on data from FAOSTAT, IBGE, and MAPA, reprinted with permission.

86

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

occupies 284 million ha (34% of the total area of Brazil), compared to 553 million used by China (59% of the total area of China) and 411 million by the United States (45% of the total area of the United States). The area for grain production in Brazil is still small (58 million ha—6.9% of the total area of Brazil) compared to China (142 million) and the United States (176 million). The vast majority of agricultural land in Brazil is used for extensive livestock pastures (Table 6). The current capacity is 1.14 heads per hectare and practices of low scientific and technological investment are expected to raise the capacity to 1.5 heads per hectare and maintain the actual production level, making nearly 70 million ha available for grain production (Sparovek et al., 2011). Another possible example of expansion without invading forest areas is the use of agricultural reserve areas (103 million ha), earmarked in some states of the Midwest and in the region of the south–southeast border of Amaz^ onia (Scolari, 2006). The survey carried out by this author, based on the 2006 Census (Table 6), indicated a possibility of doubling the area of annual crops and of increasing the area of native and cultivated forests sustainably, while maintaining an agricultural reserve area of 45 million ha. The potential expansion area for agricultural activity in Brazil is relevant, and associated with this statement is the condition of abundance in available water, sun, and renewable energy for an increased food production. In fact, it is estimated that the production, including potential expansion areas and accompanied by a reduction in the technological gap, could be tripled (Table 7). The production can be twice as high as that for annual crops and reach nearly 300 million tons of grains, especially for soybean and corn. In the case of soybean, an estimated area of 33 million ha was used for production in May 2016, with a yield of 2.9 tons ha
1 and a production of 97 million tons (CONAB, 2016a). Corn was cultivated on an area of 16 million ha, with a yield of 4.9 tons ha
1 and a production of 80 million tons. Sugarcane was grown on 9.1 million ha in the 2016/2017 growing season, with a production of 690 million tons and a yield of 77 tons ha
1 (CONAB, 2016b), very close to the total area predicted, but still with low productivity. The uninterrupted increase in production may lead to a Brazilian dominance on the world markets of key agricultural commodities. This increase will affect agricultural prices around the world, with an intensification of competition and dispute with international markets. Prior to resolving this trade issue, the Brazilian agriculture must get internally prepared to solve two questions: (a) Why are food prices in Brazil among the highest on the planet? (b) Why are there still 36 million hungry people and 65 million in

87

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

Table 7 Brazilian Agricultural Production in 2006 (IBGE, 2006) and Potential Increase by Territorial Expansion and Narrowing of Technological and Yield Gaps Current (2005) Potential Land Use

Area Production (1000 ha) (1000 tons)

Area Productivity (1000 ha) (tons/ha)

Production (1000 tons)

Annual crops

47.313

116.370

73.800

271.300

Soybean

23.413

49.792

30.000

3.00

90.000

Corn

12.026

42.128

25.000

5.00

125.000

Common bean 3.948

2.978

5.000

2.00

10.000

Rice

3.916

12.829

5.500

4.00

22.000

Wheat

2.756

5.851

5.200

2.50

13.000

Sorghum

788

2.014

2.000

4.00

8.000

Oats

326

411

600

3.00

1.800

Barley

140

367

500

3.00

1.500

Other crops

5.406

52.953

6.800

Citrus

942

20.462

1.200

25.00

30.000

Coffee

2.218

1.976

2.500

1.20

3.000

Banana

491

6.588

600

15.00

9.000

Cassava

1.755

23.927

2.500

17.00

47.112

Fiber production

1.419

2.298

2.400

Cotton

1.180

2.099

2.000

3.00

6.000

Sisal

239

199

400

1.50

600

Timber production

5.000

43.134

15.000

30.00

450.000

Bioenergy production

5.918

416.919

13.000

Sugarcane

5.571

415.694

10.000

90.00

900.000

Castor bean

215

107

1.000

1.50

1.500

Sunflower

44

209

1.000

2.50

2.500

Oil palm (dend^e)

88

909

1.000

25

25.000

89.112

6.600

929.000

Continued

88

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

Table 7 Brazilian Agricultural Production in 2006 (IBGE, 2006) and Potential Increase by Territorial Expansion and Narrowing of Technological and Yield Gaps—cont’d Current (2005) Potential Land Use

Area Production (1000 ha) (1000 tons)

Area Productivity (1000 ha) (tons/ha)

Production (1000 tons)

75.047.574

Meat and dairy 220.000 production

23.475.405

220.000

Beef

198.000

8.400

195.000

0.113

22.100

Chicken meat

—

8.895

—

—

19.817

Pork

—

3.110

—

—

5.617

Milk

22.000

23.455.000

25.000

3.00

75.000.000

Total area (1000 ha)

285.056

Total yield (1000 ha)

331.000 24.107.079

76.793.586

Adapted from Scolari, D.D.G., 2006. Produc¸a˜o agrı´cola mundial: o potencial do Brasil. Ver. Fund. Milton Campos. No. 25, 86 pp, Brası´lia, DF, based on FAOSTAT, IBGE, and MAPA, reprinted with permission.

want of the minimum amount of daily calories, that is, almost half of the Brazilian population (IBGE, 2010). The development of Brazilian agriculture has also been blamed for hunger and malnutrition in the country, for the unjust income and land distribution, and for environmental destruction (Martinelli et al., 2010), when in fact the policies of the Brazilian government are to provide a socially just and sustainable management of agricultural resources but historically government practices have been misguided and inefficient. The strategies to meet the needs of the society as a whole must be rethought to stimulate the only productive economic sector of the country, while meeting the demands of a growing population and improving their quality of life.

5.2 The Reality—A Tough Field to Plow The achievements in Brazilian agriculture in the economic aspect and in the generation of scientific and technological knowledge for the tropics are unquestioned among all groups for or against the model of transformation as it occurred. However, some neuralgic points of the model in relation

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

89

to local and global scenarios have to be discussed, in search of a consensus and necessary adjustments to the conditions expected for the next 30–40 years. The nature of the issues to be discussed here are social (urbanization, land tenure, and family agriculture), environmental (deforestation, greenhouse gases, environmental pollution), economic (trade barriers, financing, “Brazil cost,” integration of sectors, and supply chains), technical (rural extension, inputs, water, research, and innovation), international (media science, corporations, and NGOs), and strategic (sustainable intensification, scenarios, and trends). 5.2.1 Social Aspects The relationship between agricultural development and urbanization in Brazil has been marked by increased automation and reduction of employment in the country (Table 1). However, urbanization is not a problem inherent to Brazil and its model of rural development, but is rather a worldwide phenomenon. In 2007, for the first time in the history of human civilization, the proportions of urban to rural populations were inverted and the trend of the number of inhabitants within urban centers is still continually on the rise (Orsini et al., 2013). According to these authors, the population will increase particularly in developing countries and in parallel, poverty, pollution, food insecurity, and malnutrition. The food demand will be much greater and the strengthening of our agriculture and promotion of urban agriculture should be intensified, with an outlook to improve the quality of life and increase the benefits for the population as a whole. The increased urbanization of rural areas has been cited as part of the problems associated with the unjust agrarian structure of the country (Lapola et al., 2014). On the other hand, census data of Brazilian agriculture reveal a more complex scenario than the simple concept of the predominance of large farms in Brazil (Lopes et al., 2012). The agricultural census of 2006 (IBGE, 2006) reported 80 million ha of family agriculture (corresponding to class C—Table 8), used for grazing (45%), forests (28%), and crops (22%), generating 13 million related jobs in rural areas (Franc¸a et al., 2009). A more detailed analysis of microdata of the IBGE Census of 2006, published in 2010, indicated three main classes of farmers, based on income (Table 8). Of all farmers, those pigeonholed in the highest income class (A/B) represent 6% of the total. They use 38% of the total agricultural area (on average units of 426 ha) and account for 79% of the output. Class D/E includes 70% of all farmers. They use 33% of the area (on average units of 30 ha) to produce less than 8% of the total gross value product

90

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

Table 8 Income Classes as Related to Number of Farms, Farm Area, and Gross Value Product Number of Farms Area Average GVP Class Year/ Farms (%) Area (ha) (%) Area (ha) (%) Incomea

A/B

300,963

5.8

128,420,746

38.5

426.6

78.8

C

796,173

15.4

60,332,019

18.1

75.7

13.6

D/E

3,645,344

70.4

109,940,992

32.9

30.1

7.6

ND

433,156

8.4

34,986,270

10.5

—

—

Total

5,175,636

100

333,680,037

100

—

100

a

Class C, from US$ 5650.00 to 24,955.00; class A/B, above US$ 24,950.00; class D/E, below US$ 5650.00; ND, not determined; GVP, gross value product ¼ gross liquid product + production cost. Adapted from Rech, E.L., Lopes, M.R., 2012. Insights into Brazilian agriculture structure and sustainable intensification of food production. Food Energ. Sec. 1, 77–80, based on Brazilian Agriculture Census, 2006, reprinted with permission.

(GVP). The results indicate that the 21% farmers of the classes A/B and C produce 92% of the GVP, which also shows that class D/E could potentially contribute far more to the production and, mainly, could benefit from public credit policies and new technologies, like with the other classes (Rech and Lopes, 2012). The existence of an intermediate class C (15% of the farmers) with average units of 75 ha, who accounted for 14% of the GVP, refutes the myth of polarity of income (Lopes et al., 2012). These authors concluded that class C is market-oriented, makes use of modern inputs, is primarily based on family labor, and also provides temporary and permanent employment. With regard to rural inequalities, Brazilian policies have stimulated land entitlement and distribution through an agrarian reform initiated by a first decree in 1966. The Brazilian agrarian reform settled 1.3 million families on a total of 88 million ha. Of this total area, 76% and 12% were located in the North (Amazon) and northeastern region of Brazil, respectively (available at www.incra.gov.br). About 67 million ha of forest were converted to cropland or pasture in a region where agricultural activity is only possible through heavy investments in capital and appropriate technology. On the 12 million ha that were distributed in the Northeast, with high water deficiency (semiarid climate), agriculture is only possible by irrigation. Owing to this limitation of natural resources and the lack of capital and rural extension services, the agricultural census of 1996 and 2006 detected that the landowners who persisted in the settlements of the agrarian reform (386,000) accounted for 1.4% of the national production. Despite having received

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

91

more land than necessary to produce 180 million tons of grain, most of the settlers, restricted by the above limitations, are unable to produce enough for subsistence, proving that the process of land distribution has not improved conditions for farmers but aggravated poverty and food insecurity, and has certainly affected the environment, because in the absence of human development, environmental preservation is not a priority (CGEE, 2013). On the other hand, it is important to recognize the good economic results and advances in terms of environmental preservation in the agrarian reform settlements in areas with soils with good agricultural potential, supported by investments, and mainly guided by trained extension agents (TCU, 2004). Until 1994, 16.3 million ha had been included in the land reform, of the total of 88 million ha registered by INCRA so far. In 2005, there was a peak with the grant of 13.4 million ha followed by a decline in the next years, to drop to something over 7700 ha in 2015 (http://www.incra.gov.br/tree/ info/file/9610; accessed May 2016). This indicates a drastic slowdown in the land distribution policy due to the missing commitment and implementation of state policies in support of rural development in these areas. Webb and Block (2012) analyzed data of 29 developing countries (World Bank and World Health Organization) and found that a transformation of the economic structure in the country depends on a decrease in poverty and malnutrition; this reduction, especially in rural areas, occurred only where agriculture was properly supported by credit, technical assistance, and rural infrastructure. Despite the problems to ensure the livelihood of subsistence farmers of the Brazilian minifundium (farms of up to one tax unit, i.e., between 5 and 110 ha, depending on the location), the recent investments in family agriculture in terms of technical assistance and funding (PRONAF) have triggered changes in conditions and serve as proof of the coherence of the nation’s policies. In terms of the contribution of the different farmer classes to food production in Brazil, the 2006 Census reported that family farming accounted for 38% of the food production (44% animal production and 35% crop production) of the internal market (IBGE, 2006). On the other hand, when the criteria for integration in the PRONAF and the norms of the Central Bank of Brazil defined for family farming are applied, this contribution drops to 23% (Lopes et al., 2012). In part, this situation is associated with the agriculture support policies of past governments, which addressed commercial and midrange family farmers. This strategy exacerbated the socioeconomic differences in rural areas. Attempts to democratize rural regions were recently made with incentive programs for small farmers, which is the group that

92

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

produces most of the food for internal consumption in the country. The first approach was the creation of PROVAP (program of appreciation of small-scale production) in 1994, the embryo of PRONAF (a national program to strengthen family agriculture), created in 1996. These programs represent the recognition of the Brazilian government of a social class and its activity and have been the basic strategy to narrow the differences in rural regions. The PRONAF works with a set of measures, policies, and programs designed to stimulate family farming and minifundium in Brazil. Among these measures, the Rural Social Pension Fund (Sistema de Previd^encia Social Rural—SPSR) created in 1992 is highlighted: the laws of family farming (no. 11.326, of 07/24/06), of Food and Nutrition Security (no. 11.346, of 09/15/06), and of Technical Assistance and Rural Extension (no. 12.188, of 01/11/10); the national policies of Sustainable Development of Traditional Peoples and Communities (Decree 6040 of 02/07/07), the Guaranteed Minimum Price (PGPM), the Federal Government Loans (EGF), Technical Assistance and Rural Extension (PNATER), Guaranteed Price for Family Agriculture (PGPAF), Rural Housing; Harvest Plan for Family Agriculture (SAF); the Food Purchase Programs (EAP), Terra Legal (Assignment of invaded state property to farmers), Electric power for All, Zero Hunger, Family Grant, Territories of Citizenship, among others (Delgado, 2012). Most of these programs were inspired by the results of the 2006 Census and clearly indicate the government’s determination to democratize rural areas by eliminating the differences resulting from 300 years of a class-specific, subsidized agriculture, with concentration of land ownership, and mainly concerned with the maintenance of Brazil’s foreign trade balance. The expected result of these programs is the confirmation of a true and more significant role of smallholding in supplying Brazilian households and the world with food, with environmental, social, and economic security. Beyond that—to eliminate rural poverty, social inequality, environmental unsustainability, and, positively, the different Brazilian “agricultures.” 5.2.2 Environmental Aspects Of the environmental impacts caused by agriculture, the issues of deforestation and overuse of agrochemicals (to be discussed on technical aspects) pose the most serious risks to water quality and population health. With respect to the first aspect, agriculture has been blamed for deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon in the last years (Lapola et al., 2014). These authors reported an increase of 1.6% of large farms (>1.000 ha) and claimed

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

93

that this was the great catalyzer of deforestation, but it was probably due to a decrease of 2.6% of farms with between 100 and 1000 ha in the same period. The survey of deforestation in 2013 demonstrated that the settlements were mainly responsible for the total deforestation in the period (29% of the total), representing 140,000 ha of the total 584,000 ha reported as deforested (IPAM, 2014). It is also proven that, apart from the settlements, deforestation is driven by the expansion of beef cattle and timber trade (Barona et al., 2010). According to the International Tropical Timber Organization, Brazil exported 236 million m3 of wood in 2014 and ranks fourth in timber trade in the world, behind China (284 million m3), India (296 million m3), and the United States (481 million m3). There were two major peaks of deforestation in 1995 and 2004, which are now under control, despite the 28% increase in 2013 over 2012, when annual deforestation was one of the lowest of the monitored period (MCTI, 2014). The impacts of deforestation and agriculture on the balance in greenhouse gas emissions (in CO2-equivalent units) over the past 20 years are evident (Fig. 3). The share of GHG emissions from land use and forestry

Fig. 3 Brazilian greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to CO2 in the period 1990–2012. Data from Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, MCTI (Minist
erio da Ci^encia Tecnologia e Inovac¸ão), 2014. Estimativas anuais de emissões de gasesde efeito estufa no Brasil, second ed. MCTI/SEPED, Brasília, p. 168 (in Portuguese).

94

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

(land-use changes—LUCs) in the total emissions in the country varied most in this period. The LUC shows the peaks of deforestation in 1995 and 2004 and a downward trend in recent years to less than 15% of the national emissions in 2012. In these 20 years, gas emissions from farming have been growing slowly and steadily, most of them resulting from beef cattle production (44% of total emissions). In 2010, agriculture along with the energy sector accounted for most GHG emissions in the country (MCTI, 2014). In 2012, the estimated emissions of the country (including land-use change and forest—LUCF) were 4% of the total issued in the world, whereas China, the United States, and the European Union accounted for 46% of the emissions, including LUCF. Another advantage of the agricultural sector of the country for the world and the environment is the use of renewable energy. While most developed countries of the OECD (the United States, Canada, England, Germany, Japan, and Australia, among others) use 93% of nonrenewable energy, Brazil used only 46% in 2007. Energy from sugarcane has become the second largest energy source in the country. The surpluses of Brazilian GHG emissions and political initiatives in the country have been traded in carbon credits, and Sao Paulo, of all Brazilian states, ranks first in shares from Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects. To understand the international pressure on Brazil to preserve the Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado territories, it is worth remembering that some sectors of the international community are intentionally manipulating the international public opinion in favor of the preservation of natural resources of these territories. Underlying the intentions of some sectors of the international community are certainly economic interests, in particular the goal of weakening competition for commodities on the markets. The Brazilian public opinion and the press, in general, have assimilated the international environmental discourse. A critical point in this whole situation is that most areas with agricultural potential in Brazil lie in the Cerrado region. A part of these areas is covered by native vegetation and another significant portion is used for pasture (110 million ha), which is partially degraded (about 27 million ha). Especially from the degraded pasture areas, high amounts of sediments were transported to the Pantanal region, causing negative impacts in that environment (Merten and Minella, 2013). A strategy of preventing the conversion of native vegetation areas due to the expansion of agricultural activity in the region would be to impose conditions of recovering degraded pastures for agricultural use of Cerrado areas. The expansion of livestock farming in the Amazon region could be reduced if there were a political

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

95

orientation to invest efforts (through credit, research, and extension) in the improvement of the current conditions of beef cattle management, with a view to raise the stocking density, so that the same amount of beef Brazil has been producing could be raised on a smaller area with lower environmental costs for the country. 5.2.3 Economic Aspects With regard to the economic aspects that affect agriculture, we highlight the international barriers that interfere with the marketing of agricultural products, financing of agricultural activities in the country, our infrastructure, and the so-called Brazil cost. Although agriculture lost ground to industry in the composition of the Brazilian GDP in recent years, the activity accounts for a third of the GDP when including related sectors of the economy called agribusiness (corporate/commercial farming). This performance could be better, mainly if there were no trade barriers set by the European market, which absorbs 24% of Brazilian exports. In 2000, this market consumed 41% of agricultural exports, but it is currently the second largest food exporter after the United States. The drop from 41% to 24% is explained by the protectionist trade barriers, mainly the nontariff and CAP of the EU, which ensure artificial competitiveness with products outside the EU. The CAP is the root of European protectionism and was created as a system of agricultural subsidies to ensure better conditions for EU farmers by investments of US$ 126 billion in subsidies in 2011. Nontariff barriers resulted from the low competitiveness of European agricultural products and are the main obstacle against the trade of Brazilian agricultural products with the EU. These protectionist measures consist of import quotas and red tape, technical, ecological, sanitary, and phytosanitary barriers. Similar to the CAP in the EU, the United States has the Farm Bill that defines protectionist measures; both markets together import 50% of our agricultural products. A major part of these barriers is not up to international benchmarks and only intended to control imports and ensure internal and external price competitiveness of national agricultural products. Cotton is an example, into which the American government invests huge subsidies to maintain this totally uneconomic crop for the country. All countries have their forms of protection, and as the Brazilian agricultural products have characteristics that make them more competitive, they must be introduced according to the requirements of the international market. In this case, Brazil is not prepared either with proper representations abroad. The proof is that countries that produce much less agricultural

96

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

goods, e.g., France, Belgium, and Holland, export a volume that is twice as high as that of Brazil. In fact, Brazilian diplomacy has not trained thinktanks to discuss and defend the country’s agricultural markets, and in the emerging countries, which are major shoppers, the Brazilian trade representation is marginal. Aside from the trade barriers and subsidies that affect the foreign trade of the Brazilian agricultural market, there are also countless internal structural problems that hamper the process economically. Among these logistical problems, the most critical are related to the flow, e.g., transport (road, rail, and water ways), storage (distribution location and ports), and port services. The flow from the Cerrado or from more distant places has the most expensive logistics on the planet and depends on road transport and highways in disrepair. Due to the decayed state of the federal highway system in Brazil in 2013, fuel costs increased by BRL 1.4 billion. The construction and rehabilitation of transport routes require licensing, the overcoming of other technical and bureaucratic obstacles, and the goodwill of the government. In terms of storage, the country has a capacity of only 125 million tons of grain, which is limiting for a harvest of nearly 200 million tons. The national port services are insufficient and unsatisfactory, with sluggish loading/ unloading of ships, insufficient cargo handling capacity, lacking piers, and deficient basic logistics, requiring excessive labor for cargo handling, which is unionized and inefficient labor, compared to ports in other countries of South America. The attempts of the past governments to improve logistics infrastructure with the creation of programs such as PAC (Growth Acceleration Program) were lost by administrative interference, high internal corruption, and the inefficiency of the Brazilian government. Beneath these problems is the possibility of widespread power blackouts, since the current energy matrix was constructed during the military government and no investments were made by the civil governments since then to meet the requests of a population that has doubled in size and demand. Investing in logistics has apparently been the chief government investment in response to political demands of farmers and companies ever since the values of funding and costs of agricultural activity decreased in the country. With the saturation of the port capacity in the South and Southeast, the obvious alternative was the North and Northeast, using mainly rail and waterways instead of roads (Frederico, 2013). In this setting, the private companies (trading companies, banks, input companies, etc.) began to provide not only production but also monopolization of the flow, assuming storage, transport systems, and ports,

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

97

and maintaining an image of success of an activity over which the country has lost control. Another economic factor affecting agricultural production is the so-called Brazil cost. This expression is a term in the economic and political jargon of the country and is a generalization of a set of difficulties, such as poor infrastructure, excessive bureaucracy, administrative corruption, immoderate labor costs and high taxation, legal uncertainty, unskilled labor, expensive and inefficient logistics, etc., that stall the national development by increasing unemployment, informal labor, tax evasion, and foreign currency fraud. In a comparison of agricultural goods produced in the country (e.g., tractors, implements, and agricultural inputs), considering only eight items, it was found that in 2010 the price of the Brazilian product was on average 36.27% higher because of the “Brazil cost” than the price of an equivalent agricultural product from Germany or the United States. The infrastructure logistics to transport grain alone causes an estimated loss of US$ 4 billion per harvest—although the tax rate, one of the highest on the planet, is not even included in this Brazil cost. Due to the critical situation in the country, Brazil has been falling successively every year in competitiveness ranking (GCI—http://reports.weforum.org/globalcompetitiveness-index/; accessed November 17, 2016) and in 2013–2014 was ranked 56th due to the depreciation of subassets such as macroeconomic indicators (75th position), functioning of institutions (80th), government efficiency (124th), corruption (114th), and lacking trust in politicians (136th). Furthermore, the lack of quality of overall infrastructure (114th) and education (121st), along with an economy rather barred against foreign competition (144th), accounts for the low competitiveness of the country. In terms of financing of agriculture, farmers can get loans from a number of formal and informal funds, reaching BRL 20 billion in 2006 (IBGE, 2006). Banks account for over 80% of this amount and credit cooperatives for almost 5%. Classes A/B described in Table 8 account for 65% of the loans and class C for about 15% of the total financing. The historical series of rural credit in Brazil can be viewed on the website (www.bcb.gov.br/htms/ creditorural) and shows far higher values than those disclosed in the period by farmers for the 2006 Census. In 2012, the direct credit taken up by producers was BRL 114 billion, 68% of which was allocated to agriculture and the rest to animal husbandry. Federal banks accounted for 54% of this funding, followed by private banks (33%), credit unions (10%), and state banks (3%). Around 55% of this sum was spent on costs, 31% on investment and the rest for marketing. Cooperatives financed 4.6 million, of which 88% was

98

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

destined for agriculture. Small properties were financed (PRONAF) with BRL 16.3 billion, of which 49% was spent on agriculture (35%) and livestock production (14%) and the remaining 51% on investment in agriculture (25%) and livestock (26%). The direct credit for producers financed 2.6 million contracts for production on 13.7 million ha, while PRONAF funded 1.8 million contracts and the cooperatives 7.9 million contracts on 25,000 ha. Another crucial aspect of the economy of Brazilian agriculture is the lack of integration between public policies and the production chains. With the deregulation of markets, the adoption of liberal policies, and the globalization of the economy in the 1990s, the government decided to fragment the ministries directly involved with agricultural activities. At the apex of the bidirectional development of Brazilian agriculture, there are on the one hand the Ministry of Agriculture that deals with credit and income security of large and medium farmers and on the other hand the Ministry of Agrarian Development that addresses the interests of smallholders. In addition, the Ministry of Social Development and Fight Against Hunger deals with food distribution to the most needy. The Ministries of Planning and of Treasury, as well as the Chief of Staff Ministry, among others have an indirect effect on agriculture. The lack of integration between agricultural policies and the uninterrupted competition for resources and assignments among ministries creates a totally unproductive administrative chaos. As a result, the country’s agricultural sector, although one of the largest, is also one of the most vulnerable commodity producers. The direct support in the form of tariff protection is almost totally nullified by the high fees charged by banks. This, together with the ministries, agencies, entities, and councils of interest and representation, only worsens disintegration and dilutes the efficiency of the activity (Scolari, 2006). Apart from this lack of integration in the higher spheres of power, integration strategies and actions involved in the agricultural sector and production chains are also missing, due to the conservative view of the sector as a supplier of raw materials and not as a part of a larger chain that could add more value to its products. 5.2.4 Technical Aspects In technical terms, the actual Brazilian agriculture is still haunted by problems with rural technical assistance that tends to be available only in the southern states of Brazil, with the high levels of agrochemicals, lack of development of more efficient irrigation technologies, the need for innovation in research to meet the new challenges related to climate change, and the

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

99

demand to produce more with less negative environmental impact. The extension service in Brazil is represented in all 27 states of the Federation, with state and mixed state-federal institutions that reach about 1.7 million farmers and their families. They are based in 4200 offices in rural areas of 94% of the Brazilian municipalities and employ a technical staff of 15,000 extension workers with the most varied backgrounds (agronomists, veterinarians, animal scientists, sociologists, economists, agricultural experts, etc.). Despite these figures, the 2006 Census revealed that only 20% of all small farms (up to 500 ha) received technical assistance. Part of this deficiency is associated with budget cuts and extension workers engrossed in bureaucratic functions (related to regional programs and credit) that have impaired the quality of service in rural areas, especially in regions where challenges are more complex, as in northern and northeastern Brazil. Highly skilled and continuous assistance by motivated staff is required in these regions. The inputs were a driving force of the evolution of Brazilian agriculture in the 1960s, but can now limit crop production due to the economic conditions and availability in the country. Nation-wide, fertilizer use has increased significantly (Table 1) and in 2012, 30 million tons were used mainly in the states of Mato Grosso, Sa˜o Paulo, and Parana´ (44% of Brazilian consumption). Brazil is currently the fourth largest consumer of nutrients for fertilizer mixtures, representing about 5.9% of the global consumption, after China, India, and the United States. Despite this volume, the quantities are still far below those used in countries with a more developed agriculture and the demand is expected to increase with the increasing domestic production. The intensified productivity of Brazilian agriculture has been largely a result of fertilizer application, which means greater land-use efficiency and use of less land, with an estimated contraction of land requirement of 80 million ha. Currently, agricultural growth may be restricted by fertilizers, with a demand that is greater than the domestic production, as well as by international prices, poor logistics, agricultural costs, etc. This is the case of phosphorus and potassium, with dwindling local and global reserves, which in the near future may restrict all agricultural activities, with a serious and irreversible impact for the entire world population. Another intensely used group of materials in agriculture are the agrochemicals, which has raised concerns about food safety and environmental contamination. Brazil consumes 20% of the agrochemicals sold in the world and ranked first with applications of nearly 1 million tons of agrotoxins in 2013. The export monocultures such as soybean, cotton, sugarcane, and corn consume 80% of this volume, whereas a high quantity of fungicide

100

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

is being used for vegetables. According to the IBGE, about 70 million Brazilians are exposed to agrotoxins, since much of the food, especially for fresh consumption, was treated with an application at some point. One possibility to reduce pesticide consumption in the country is the use of transgenic seeds. In the case of transgenic soybean (growing season 2003/2004), an additional gain of BRL 2.3 billion was reported, resulting from reduced production costs and increased yields (Rodrigues, 2012). However, a detailed comparative analysis of the costs of the growing season 2013/2014 revealed that the production of conventional was cheaper than that of genetically modified (GM) soybean, in spite of the suspension of some governmental taxes (technology fee) and reduction in herbicide requirement (Richetti, 2013). The estimated savings in water, fuel, and pesticides as well as improved management and higher yield potential were cited to justify the adoption of this biotechnology. However, the lower production costs do not compensate for the differentiated management, the cost of transgenic seed is not worth the possible cost reduction with herbicides, and the higher value of conventional grain eliminates the possible higher gain with transgenic seed. The results demonstrate that the potential of this technique is not optimized yet, because so far the only segment with effective participation in profits is seed production, selling GM for twice (over 100%) the price of conventional seed. Although monocultures are extremely unstable in terms of plant health and commercial crops depend on the use of agrochemicals for the control of competitors, more efficient and less toxic products must be adopted in the production system, since the food and environmental insecurity is already present in the food consumed and in contaminated soil and water. Water is another important component of agricultural production and, although 13% of the world’s freshwater reserves lie in Brazil (70% in the Amazon basin), water can be a limiting factor for crops. Nation-wide, the use of drinking water for irrigation has been reduced, especially in southern Brazil, where rice is being grown in a flooded system. Recent technologies, developed by agricultural research with rice (SOSBAI, 2012) to reduce water consumption for irrigation, have been widely adopted by farmers, with very positive results. But much remains to be done regarding the role of irrigation in Brazilian agriculture, both with respect to an increase in irrigated agriculture as well as in improved efficiency of irrigation practices. The use of 54% of the total water consumption in agriculture (Table 1) to irrigate less than 10% of the cultivated area is presently a risk, and in the future, climate change can aggravate this situation, when consumption by the

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

101

population will be higher and the water availability decreased by contamination or other factors aside from climate. Probably, the use of GM crops with high drought resistance can be a solution. Maize varieties with this trait are being released in the United States and will likely be planted in Africa by 2017 (Rech and Lopes, 2012). Another important aspect is the need for a more efficient management system of the country’s water bodies, to evaluate the impact of agriculture on water resources more effectively. Currently, the National Agency of Waters has focused more on measuring the water quantity and quality in large basins through a monitoring network, while less attention has been paid to aspects related to the water quality of, particularly, small rural basins (Merten and Minella, 2013). In relation to research in agricultural sciences, the intensification of Brazilian science in terms of publications does not necessarily have a strong impact on technological growth, but the application in and contribution to innovation have generally been rather restricted. The current trend of Brazilian agriculture, specifically in terms of commodities, tends to an intensified use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) and of the whole agronomic management associated with this system. However, this production model has not prevented Brazil from continuing as the largest consumer of agrochemicals in the world, which is obviously neither sustainable nor environmentally safe, in particular with regard to the water quality. The search for sustainable agriculture must be accompanied by an enormous effort of agricultural research to address issues related to soil management (improvement of soil quality and efficient fertilizer use), irrigation (improved use efficiency of irrigation water), plant health (resume biological control programs), and weed control (by the use of not only herbicides but also management practices such as crop rotation, associated with a combination of mechanical and cultural practices already studied in detail in the past). In this context, the development of organic agriculture also becomes highly desirable, especially to meet the demand for the production of safer food. With regard to the low innovation capacity of Brazil, the global innovation index (http://globalinnovationindex.org) began to be calculated from 2007, when Brazil ranked 40th. This position was the best the country has ever reached and has since slid back to the 64th position in 2013. Although Brazil is in 13th place in the ranking of publications, Switzerland (18th) and Sweden (21st) ranked 1st and 2nd in innovation rate in 2013. This paradox can be explained by the fact that applied research generates development, whereas innovation occurs in the function of a business demand in

102

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

companies. Since our companies are not prepared to innovate owing to constraints in terms of structure and of the proper culture, it is once again the role of universities to promote innovation. This applies to Agricultural Sciences, which should be less specific, more focused, and more pragmatic in relation to the real problems of society, with a clear understanding that the production of knowledge in itself generates no value, unlike the use made of this knowledge. By science-related marketing in Brazil, science has been featured as responsible for generating knowledge, products, and processes that ensure increased productivity and hence the profitability of agricultural activities. Some authors claim that science allows a greater control of the conditions of the production process, with an expanded scope to dominate the natural resources, and especially a more effective exploitation of the biological potential of plants and animals for higher gains with the activity. With the greater control of nature, the agriculture and mainly agribusiness have become dependent on industry-oriented scientific processes. Owing to science, agriculture ceased to be an uncertainty in terms of environmental factors to become a certainty in terms of economic profitability (Elias, 2006), and much of the agricultural activity evolved to an undertaking characterized by the rationality of the technical–scientific–informational period (Santos, 2000). The elevation of science to this level can be questioned with the recent example of the lower production cost of soybean, Brazil’s main commodity, as a factor of efficiency and international competitiveness. In a comparison of the costs with the main competitor, American soybean, it is evident that the only and most important factor of competitiveness is the cost of Brazilian land. While 1 ha for soybean cultivation costs little more than US$ 200 in the state of Maranha˜o, it would cost US$ 25,000 in Iowa. If this item were removed from the calculation, Brazilian soybean would be the most expensive on the planet and would be commercially completely uninteresting. Obviously, raising the productivity with maximum exploitation of the physiological potential of a crop does not completely solve the competitiveness issue. The efficient and effective use of materials and equipment, management, and resource administration must be improved to actually make the crop viable, as is the case with other crops in the country. Currently, basic and applied research generated at universities and by public institutions of agricultural research (OEPAS and Embrapa) lay the scientific basis required for the expansion and consolidation of Brazilian agriculture. In this scenario, the direction of research conducted by Embrapa

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

103

and its creation itself are evidently part of governmental policy actions for the expansion of commercial agriculture and export. Embrapa was reorganized to operate the public research system in closer cooperation with multinational companies (as in the case of transgenics) and agribusiness (Delgado, 2012). Both Embrapa and the graduate programs are supported by the Brazilian society as a whole, and both have the responsibility of a commitment to do less biased and socially more equitable agricultural research, which goes beyond the discourse of business, marketing, and the “Brazilian agricultures.” 5.2.5 Media Aspects Brazilian agriculture, in particular commercial farming, has come under fire from the scientific and journalistic media in the country and the world. The interests behind this pressure seem clear and are generally associated with deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, the agrarian question, and the export-focused model, among others. Journalists often use some scientifically whitewashed data to give their reports credit and, based thereon, affix the labels that suit them. Moreover, the vast majority of research results, especially those related to the Amazon, are produced by foreign scientists who get to publish issues of this nature without difficulty in high-impact journals with wide circulation. As if this were not enough, the few scientific papers produced in the country in this regard are clearly ideologicallydriven and the discussion is focused exclusively on the possible problems. When a problem ceases to exist, as in the case of the slowdown of deforestation since 2006, the focus shifts to the agrarian question or whatever else seems easier to attack. In this context, one can cite the case of the NGOs that operate as private research institutes and are sponsored by major international competitors of the Brazilian agriculture and those interested in the maintenance of our biological and mineral resources in the Amazon. These researchers must produce something that can justify the existence of the research structure and of their proper wages. Only to exemplify the claim of discrepancies in deforestation rates in the country, there are institutes overestimating deforestation, by up to 200% of the estimates made by public bodies internationally recognized for their quality of research and monitoring, as in the case of INPE and Amazon Deforestation Monitoring Project (Projeto do Desflorestamento na Amaz^ onia Legal—PRODES) of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI). Another situation is that of the international correspondents in the country, who write anything that can make news, with a concept of publication that associates scientific

104

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

illiteracy with journalistic presumption and ideological biasedness to produce anything but the truth, as long as it publishable. Obviously, the ideological and speculative patrolling in the country should monitor areas where problems and limitations are far greater, as in the case of education, health, safety, etc., with development rates that are among the lowest of the world. It also seems evident that the achievements of Brazilian agriculture and the expectations generated for the future of the country and the world resulting from this activity should be acknowledged and respected. The limitations of the Brazilian agricultural model can be used as a starting point to establish a fairer collective discussion, committed to the development of the country and useful primarily for the Brazilian society. 5.2.6 Strategic Aspects The most likely future scenarios into which the Brazilian agriculture will be inserted must be projected, and this exercise is part of the strategic planning for an essential sector for the Brazilian economy. The sustainable intensification of agricultural activity is already a reality in the country, but needs to be expanded and consolidated as a new process of transformation and procedure in agriculture, featuring a new paradigm, to meet former and future demands of Brazilian society. The challenge is to retrieve more food from the same area with the technology available, warranting food and environmental quality and safety, based on an efficient and intensive use of available resources, the restoration of degraded environments, protection of natural resources, and improved environmental services, while productivity is being increased (Godfray et al., 2010). The FAO defines this as the optimization of production per unit area, taking into account the sustainability of integrated components (social, economic, political, and environmental) of the production system. In fact, many of the practices of sustainable intensification are already being applied, but there is still a large yield gap (i.e., difference between the actual yield and the yield obtained with appropriate technologies and inputs) to be filled, which are the goals to be pursued. Furthermore, the productivity barriers can be overcome by increasing potential yields with innovative strategies (Lal, 2013). Other possible upcoming technological innovations are associated with a better understanding of the rhizosphere processes and the feasibility of their use in production processes, e.g., of suppressive soils, soilless agriculture (aeroponics, hydroponics, aquaponics, space agriculture), automation and seamless integration into the industrial sector, etc. In fact, Brazilian agriculture has to get ready for the next 50 years,

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

105

since the changes and transformations will be greater and more challenging than any faced so far in the history of mankind. Based on the normative scenarios (expected future reality) of the Brazilian agriculture, described earlier in the text, one can briefly state that despite the increase in the number of inhabitants, the population growth rates of the planet will decline and quality of life as a whole is expected to improve and, consequently, social and environmental development, with greater demand and higher standards of markets and products. Climate change and limited resources, for example, of water and fertilizer, should influence the productivity and technologies to be adopted. The country’s economy will continue depending on macrocommercial farming and increase the importance of microfamily business with great prospects for the development of an agriculture focused on the production of organic foods since these systems are more labor intensive. Small farmers and microfarming business will develop faster toward a further diversification of activities and products and increased participation in markets, with a declining number of jobs, and a rise in automation and demand for activity-specific technologies. However, the gap between regions and between land and income distribution will continuously increase, and so will the social problems arising from these disparities. The domestic market will grow and boost competition in the international market. In general, macrocommercial agribusiness will grow steadily, but challenges lie ahead due to the poor economic performance of the country and the effects and problems arising from this underperformance (return to high inflation, drop in investment, strengthening of American Chinese economies, devaluation of the Brazilian real, higher domestic interest rates, reduced funding and budget scope, harvest limitations by logistical problems, etc.). For the trend and exploratory scenarios (that tend to happen and may happen, respectively), the possibilities of direct and indirect effects on agriculture are countless. The model of rural development is expected to be restructured, to meet the demands of a consolidated macro commercial agriculture and of a continuously growing microfarming business, harvest after harvest. The Brazil cost must be curtailed and exports of current and new products should be solidified and increased, improving the international competitiveness of our agriculture. With regard to the environment, the trend is to promote intensive sustainability, systemic and integrated use of natural resources (soil, water, forests), and food production with less environmental impacts, among others, independent of the preexisting social pressure. Food safety has always been imperative, but as incomes rise, the

106

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

population will demand new products with certified quality and production processes. Many of these new requirements will depend on support from a more focused and realistic research, with a strong characteristic of innovation, targeted to more specific sectors, such as subsistence, organic, and regionalized commercial agriculture, agroforestry systems, among others. In terms of application, our biodiversity and the possibility of using biotechnology, bioinformatics, automation, and other technologies should be exploited in a more sustainable way, aiming above all to equalize the differences in Brazilian society (general socialization of welfare).

6. CONCLUDING REMARKS In the history of Brazil, no economic sector has been as important for the country as agriculture. Ever since colonial times up to the present, agricultural activity has been primarily responsible for the maintenance of the economic health and trade balance in a nation whose industry is not adequately prepared to assume its role on the national scene. Agriculture has undergone several transformations, resulting in a bidirectional model of development that emphasized discrepancies among all elements involved in the process (Table 9). The origins of this model date back to colonial times, when the rural oligarchy was established on the basis of slave workforce with sufficient efficiency to meet the demands for export of products such as sugarcane, coffee, and cotton, in a low-technology world. In this setting, the gap between the large and the small, the rich and the poor, and the young and the old, among other dichotomies, began to appear more clearly. The dependence on monocultures for export at the expense of the polyculture production for internal consumption consolidated the differences, and this model continued to develop until the mid-20th century. In the intervening years, the economic support of the country consisted of a few crops, which by themselves could not feed the nation. Changes in the scenario of Brazilians’ diet set in with changes resulting from the green revolution, in which the State chose to side with the largeand medium-scale farmers as the drivers of change. Incentives and subsidies of all kinds were available for the new production model, and artificial inputs (chemical and mechanical) replaced the traditional, more natural ones. The industry and agroindustry complexes took charge of the production process and established a new production standard based on capital accumulation. In this context, Brazilian science, generated by public universities and research institutions, provided the conditions for technological adaptation, an

Table 9 Phases of Brazilian Agriculture, Its Main Characteristics, and Indicators of Bidirectional Development Bidirectional Characteristics of Brazilian Agriculture Phases of Agriculture

Processes

Products

Producers

Land Ownership

Purpose

Preindustrialization (1500–1950)

Conservative and subsistence

Mono- and polycultures

Oligarchy and proletariat

Latifundium and minifundium

Dominance and subsistence

Green revolution (1950–1990)

Technological and empirical

Raw material and Small and large scale food

Intensive and extensive

Productivity and food

Global scientific (1990–present)

Agribusiness and family farming

Commodities and Entrepreneur and products family farmer

Corporate and family

Profit and products

108

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

expansion of the agricultural area, and productivity increases. Developing in this direction, Brazil stopped depending on foreign technology and imports to feed its population, but became a commodity exporter and assigned again the primary role to agriculture in domestic economy and foreign trade. In return, a side effect of the transformation was a widening of the income gap in rural areas, leading to a concentration of land ownership, unemployment, abandonment of polyculture, and increased urbanization. The economic crisis in Brazil in the 1980s and 1990s caused corporate agriculture and its production model to cease being fully subsidized by the State. It emerged from this condition under the name of “agribusiness” and restored its old production model, under the auspices of science, which ensured greater control of nature, certainty of gains, and the status of modernity. Large corporations of global commodities assumed the role of the State not only in financing but also in logistics at all production stages. They ensured the dependence of the rural areas by buying out the production of rural entrepreneurs in advance and thereby the control and dependence of the activity, as well as sovereignty over food production and the economy. Currently, “agribusiness” is the only growing sector of the Brazilian economy that maintains the trade balance with foreign countries and causes GDP to grow. Primary surpluses resulting from this sector have been the only justification for the use of Brazilian territory by rural entrepreneurs at the demands of corporations and have helped associate a general success story to an activity the Brazilian public no longer controls. In fact, this performance is only possible thanks to the local conditions of cheap land, as well as abundant sun light and water, since all other production inputs supplied by corporations are extremely expensive, compared to the markets of key competitors (the United States and European Union). Without these prerequisites, the country would not have become the second largest producer of meat and the third largest producer of agricultural goods, especially for crops such as soybean. The concentration of arable land and its expansion into tropical biomes such as the Amazon and the Pantanal have fueled intense national and international debates. Land use for agricultural activity in the country has released an alarming amount of sediments and pollutants into major river basins of the country, impairing the water quality and availability, and leading to the irreversible loss of elements needed for the maintenance of the future production system. In the global setting, the pressure is great to withdraw the only advantage and winning margin in production of the Brazilian agriculture, which is the abundant and low-cost land, and thus eliminate the only factor of international competitiveness. In this particular

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

109

case, it seems that the intention is just to relieve the pressure on the American and European markets that are saturated in terms of land availability and have reached the physiological limits of crops and production technology. From the standpoint of these markets, deforestation allowed only the expansion of farming and logging at low production costs, representing an expansion of the production of commodities and a competitive disadvantage for American and European products. International campaigns against deforestation in the Amazon (i.e., the Brazilian Amazon) stem from incentives for agricultural markets of developed countries, using an environmental pretense to back up their particular interests. It has been estimated that the American investment in reducing tropical deforestation through climatic and environmental policies and offsets and by the international political pressure would yield revenues of about US$ 300 billion between 2012 and 2030 for American producers of soybeans, vegetable oil, meat, and raw wood. The hypocrisy of agricultural markets and international media in taking on the environmental cant does not authorize Brazilians to cut down forests or to use their resources unsustainably. However, it is worth remembering that the sovereign decision about the management of the territory for the benefit of the society belongs one and only to Brazil itself. While the macrobusiness activity of the Brazilian agriculture has to balance the burden of global competition, plus its own problems, to stay in the market, generating profits and justifying its existence, agricultural microenterprises are still affected by a legacy of 300 years of policies and decisions driving in the opposite direction of the whole process. Keeping up or widening the gap between the "Brazilian agricultures" would trim and cut any possibility of maintaining economic, environmental, and food sovereignty. This is a situation the Brazilian government is aware of and has been trying to amend over the last 50 years. Similarly, as the government invested in large and medium-scale farms during the green revolution, it has been trying to streamline the smallholders’ reality by distributing 88 million ha of farmland through the agrarian reform. The issue of land reform in the country also deserves attention since the distribution of land for the sake of ownership alone proved to be an inefficient strategy when no support was provided at the same time, based on credit, technical assistance, and organization of the producers. Of the total land earmarked for rural settlements, 76% are in the northern region and 12% in the Northeast, mostly on poor soils and far away from consumer markets (in the case of settlements in the Amazon region) and with little water availability (settlements in the Northeast).

110

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

The policies, funding, and assistance programs created in the last 20 years and Brazilian science were not efficient enough to fully unlock the potential of the social group of subsistence farmers. It is extremely desirable to eradicate the polarization of the "Brazilian agricultures" (agribusiness and family farming) with the understanding that these are unique, complementary, necessary, limited, and have an equally essential purpose. Brazil today and tomorrow cannot exist sovereignly without both converging in a single direction. This should be the basic principle underlying an NAP that harmonizes both forms of agriculture.

7. PLEA FOR AN NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL POLICY (NAP) In the history of Brazil, agriculture has generated two distinct groups of performers and performances, resulting from the differentiated actions and attitudes of the parties and the governmental support. The development in opposite directions gave rise to groups with proper identity, concepts, niche, elements, and models of validation. Both groups are unique in their definitions, fallible in their concepts, indispensable in their functions, and complementary in their primary goal (agriculture). The basic principle of formulating an NAP is acceptance of these groups, understanding of their characteristics, recognition of their importance, and search for the convergence of outlooks and of results for the benefit of the Brazilian society. The elaboration of an NAP and its stages (formulation, implementation, and evaluation) should be based on the principle of duality, with a pluralistic view as orientation, equality as form of organization of interests and incrementalism as the decision-making model. In the pluralistic view of policy formulation, the interests should be organized in egalitarian groups, tackling the problems free of ideological influences, with multiple definitions of values, impacts, and rights. Information must be questioned and discussed, but not manipulated. The formulation is worked out collectively by the concerned parties and strategically planned to be incremental, checked, and adjusted according to the decision-making process. The implementation should be founded on the satisfaction of the pivotal interest groups with plenty of room for decision making among organizations, with consensus building and shared goals. The initial reconciliation between the different natures of the organizations involved will be the key point to establish a dialectic of convergence from the specific to a single interest: the Brazilian agriculture.

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

111

The primary objective of NAP must be the food sovereignty of the country. For practical purposes, duality may be considered in the layout, but this perception must be overcome, with regard to the need for a single agriculture that meets the interests of Brazilian society. Agriculture will be founded on the basic principle of sustainability and safety of all components of the actuation system, directed toward the pursuit of intensification with low environmental impact, neutrality of natural resource degradation, and increasing climate resilience. It will be based on pillars that characteristically reflect concomitant interests, sectors, and actions such as production and conservation, funding and trade, research and innovation, assistance and rural extension, infrastructure and logistics, employment and income, rural cooperatives, and education, among others. The NAP must involve a clear compensation for the private use of the Brazilian territory and assign these compensations for social, environmental, and economic convergence provided by the NAP. It is up to the Brazilian government, while abstaining from partiality or interference with the decisions of the interest groups, to implement, evaluate, and increment the development in small steps in line with the primary objective and ends to be defined by stakeholders and the Brazilian society. Even if the unification of Brazilian agricultures may seem utopian and beyond reach, it is time to start managing the country’s interests independently and remember that only competitors have an interest in splitting things up (“divide and conquer”). Only through multiplication and balance will Brazilians get to reap the harvest they are expecting after these 500 years of history of the country and its agriculture.

REFERENCES Alves, E., Oliveira, A.J., 2005. O orc¸amento da Embrapa. Rev. Pol. Agric. 4, 73–85 (in Portuguese). Ayer, H.W., Such, G.E., 1971. Social rates of return and aspects of agricultural research: the case of cotton research in Sa˜o Paulo. Brazil. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 54, 557–569. Barona, E., Ramankutty, N., Hyman, G., Coomes, O.T., 2010. The role of pasture and soybean in deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 5, 1–9. Battelle, 2013. 2014 global R&D funding forecast. Battelle Mag, 33. Beintema, N., Avila, F., Fachini, C., 2010. Brazil: new developments in the organization and funding of public agricultural research. ASTI Country Note Washington, DC/Brasilia: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)/Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, p. 8. Bollinger, A., Magid, J., Amado, T.J.C., Skora Neto, F., de Fatima dos Santos Ribeiro, M., Calegari, A., Ralisch, R., de Neergaard, A., 2006. Taking stock of the Brazilian ‘ZeroTill Revolution’: a review of landmark research and Farmers’ practice. Adv. Agron. 91, 1–64. Brasil-Empresa de Pesquisa Energ
etica, 2013. Balanc¸o Energ
etico Nacional 2013. EPE, Rio de Janeiro, p. 55 (in Portuguese).

112

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

Bruinsma, J., 2009. The Resource Outlook to 2050. By how much do land, water and crop yields need to increase by 2050? In: Expert Meeting on How to Feed the World in 2050. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Economic and Social Development Department, p. 33. Camargo, F.A.O., Venegas, V.H.A., Baveye, P., 2010. Brazilian soil science: from its inception to the future, and beyond. R. Bras. Ci. Solo 34, 589–599. CGEE (Centro de Gesta˜o e Estudos Estrat
egicos), 2013. Ci^encia para o desenvolvimento sustenta´vel global: contribuic¸a˜o do Brasil. Sı´ntese dos Encontros Preparato´rios ao FMC 2013. Centro de Gesta˜o e Estudos Estrat
egicos, Brasilia, p. 114 (in Portuguese). CONAB (Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento), 2016a. Acompanhamento da Safra Brasileira de gra˜os. V.3—Safra 2015/16—N.8—Oitavo Levantamento, Brası´lia, 178 pp, May 2016 (in Portuguese). CONAB (Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento), 2016b. Acompanhamento da Safra Brasileira de Cana-de-Ac¸u´car, Brası´lia. V.3—Safra 2016/17—N.1—Primeiro Levantamento. 66 pp (in Portuguese). De La Mata, G.C., Riega-Campos, S., 2014. An analysis of international conservation funding in the Amazon. https://www.moore.org/programs/environmental-conservation/andesamazon-initiative/learn-more-about-the-andes-amazon-initiative. Delgado, N.G., 2012. Agronego´cio e agricultura familiar no Brasil: desafios para a transformac¸a˜o democra´tica do meio rural. Nov. Cad. NAEA 15 85–129 (in Portuguese with English abstract). Elias, D., 2006. Globalizac¸a˜o e fragmentac¸a˜o do espac¸o agrı´cola do Brasil. Scr. Nova 1, 59–81 (in Portuguese with English abstract). FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 2007. The state of food and agriculture. http:// www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1200e/a1200e00.htm. Franc¸a, C.G., Del Grossi, M.E., Vicente, P.M., 2009. O censo agropecua´rio 2006 e a agricultura familiar no Brasil. MDA, Brası´lia, p. 96 (in Portuguese). Frederico, S., 2013. Agricultura cientı´fica globalizada e fronteira agrı´cola no Brasil. Confins (Paris) 17, 1–17 (in Portuguese). Friedman, S., 2012. Farms here, forest there: tropical deforestation and US competitiveness in agriculture and timber. http://assets.usw.org/our-union/pulp-paper-forestry/farmshere-forests-there-report-5-26-10.pdf. Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M., Toulmin, C., 2010. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–818. Gomez, G.G., 2014. General comments to the AAA El Dorado task force. http:// anthroniche.com/darkness_documents/0103.htm. Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S.V., Goetz, S.J., Loveland, T.R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C.O., Townshend, J.R.G., 2013. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853. IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatı´stica), 2006. Censo Agropecua´rio 2006— Agricultura familiar—primeiros resultados. IBGE, CDCI, Rio de Janeiro, p. 267 (in Portuguese). IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatı´stica), 2010. Pesquisa nacional por amostra de domicı´lio—seguranc¸a alimentar, 2004–2009. IBGE, CDCI. IBGE, CDCI, Rio de Janeiro, p. 183 (in Portuguese). IPAM, O., 2014. Aumento no Desmatamento na Amaz^ onia em 2013: um ponto fora da curva ou fora de controle? Relato´rio de 07 de Janeiro de 2014. 8 pp. Lagi, M., Bertrand, K.Z., Bar-Yam, Y., 2011. The food crises and political instability in North Africa and the Middle East. arXiv:1108.2455 15. Lal, R., 2013. Food security in a changing climate. Ec. Hydr. 13, 8–21.

Brazilian Agriculture in Perspective

113

Lapola, D.M., Martinelli, L.A., Peres, C.A., Ometto, J.H.B., Ferreira, M.E., Nobre, C.A., Aguiar, A.P.D., Bustamante, M.M.C., Cardoso, M.F., Costa, M.H., Joly, C.A., Leite, C.C., Moutinho, P., Sampaio, G., Strassburg, B.B.N., Vieira, I.C.G., 2014. Pervasive transition of the Brazilian land-use system. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 27–35. Leisher, C., Touval, J., Hess, S.M., Boucher, T.M., Reymondin, L., 2013. Land and forest degradation inside protected areas in Latin America. Diversity 5, 779–795. Lopes, A.S., Guimara˜es Guilherme, L.R., 2016. A career perspective on soil management in the Cerrado region of Brazil. Adv. Agron. V 137, 1–72. Lopes, I.V., Rocha, D.P., Lopes, M.R., Bomfim, R.C., 2012. Perfis das classes de renda rural no Brasil. Rev. Pol. Agri. 2, 21–27 (in Portuguese with English abstract). Martha Jr., G.B., Contini, E., Alves, A., 2012. Embrapa: its origins and changes. In: Baer, W. (Ed.), The Regional Impact of National Policies: The Case of Brazil. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 204–226. Martinelli, L.A., Naylor, R., Vitousek, P.M., Moutinho, P., 2010. Agriculture in Brazil: impacts, costs, and opportunities for a sustainable future. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2, 431–458. Matos, P.F., Salazar, V.L.P., 2011. A modernizac¸a˜o da agricultura no Brasil e os novos usos do territo´rio. Geo UERJ 22, 290–322 (in Portuguese with English abstract). Matthey, H., Fabiosa, J.F., Fuller, F.H., 2004. Brazil: the future of modern agriculture? MATRIC Briefing Paper 04-MBP 6, p. 25. MCTI (Minist
erio da Ci^encia Tecnologia e Inovac¸a˜o), 2014. Estimativas anuais de emisso˜es de gasesde efeito estufa no Brasil, second ed. MCTI/SEPED, Brası´lia, p. 168 (in Portuguese). Merten, G.H., Minella, J.P.G., 2013. The expansion of Brazilian agriculture: soil erosion scenarios. Int. Soil Water Cons. Res. 1, 37–48. Nicholls, W.H., 1970. The transformation of agriculture in a semi-industrialized country: the case of Brazil. In: Thorbecke, E. (Ed.), The Role of Agriculture in Economic Development. NBER Books (The National Bureau of Economic Research), Cambridge, pp. 311–386. Orsini, F., Kahane, R., Nono-Wondin, R., Gianquinto, G., 2013. Urban agriculture in the developing world: a review. Agron. Sust. Dev. 33, 695–720. Pereira, M.F., 1999. Evoluc¸a˜o da fronteira tecnolo´gica mu´ltipla e da produtividade total dos fatores do setor Agropecua´rio brasileiro de 1970 a 1996. Tese, PPG Engenharia de Produc¸a˜o, UFSC, p. 144 (in Portuguese with English abstract). Pereira, P.A.A., Martha Jr., G.B., Santana, C.A.M., Alves, E., 2012. The development of Brazilian agriculture: future technological challenges and opportunities. Agric. Food Sec. 1, 1–4. Prado, R.M., 2008. Diagnosis about the knowledge in soil science in Brazil: the scientific production of journals from 1988 to 2007. Rev. Bras. Po´s-Graduac¸a˜o 5, 303–321. Rada, N., Valdes, C., 2012. Policy, technology and efficiency of Brazilian agriculture. ERR-137, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Econ. Res. Rep., 137, p. 43. Radulovich, R., 1990. A view on tropical deforestation. Nature 346, 6281. Rech, E.L., Lopes, M.R., 2012. Insights into Brazilian agriculture structure and sustainable intensification of food production. Food Energ. Sec. 1, 77–80. Richetti, A., 2013. Viabilidade econ^ omica da cultura da soja na safra 2013/2014, em Mato Grosso do Sul. Dourados: Embrapa Agropecua´ria Oeste. Comun. T
ecn., 187, p. 10 (in Portuguese). Rodrigues, R., 2012. A evoluc¸a˜o da transgenia. Esp. Citr. 7, 50–52 (in Portuguese). Salles-Filho, S., Bonacelli, M.B., 2007. Em busca de um novo modelo para as organizac¸o˜es pu´blicas de pesquisa no Brasil. Ci. Cult. 59, 28–32 (in Portuguese).

114

F.A.O. Camargo et al.

Salles-Filho, S., Albuquerque, R., Szmercsa´nyi, T., Bonacelli, M.B.M., Paulino, S., Bruno, M., Mello, D., Corazza, R., Carvalho, S.M.P., Corder, S., Ferreira, C., 2000. Ci^encia, tecnologia e inovac¸a˜o—a reorganizac¸a˜o da pesquisa pu´blica no Brasil. Editora Komedi, Campinas (in Portuguese). Santos, R.F., 1988. Ana´lise crı´tica da interpretac¸a˜o neocla´ssica do processo de modernizac¸a˜o da agricultura brasileira. Rev. Econ. Pol. 8, 131–148 (in Portuguese). Santos, M., 2000. Por uma outra globalizac¸a˜o: do pensamento u´nico à consci^encia universal, p. 174, Rio de Janeiro, Record (in Portuguese). Scolari, D.D.G., 2006. Produc¸a˜o agrı´cola mundial: o potencial do Brasil. Ver. Fund. Milton Campos. No. 25, Brası´lia, DF, 86 pp. SOSBAI (Sociedade Sul-Brasileira de Arroz Irrigado), 2012. Arroz irrigado: recomendac¸o˜es t
ecnicas da pesquisa para o Sul do Brasil. SOSBAI, Porto Alegre, p. 176 (in Portuguese). Sparovek, G., Barreto, A., Klug, I., Papp, L., Lino, J., 2011. Revisa˜o do Co´digo Florestal brasileiro. Novos estudos—CEBRAP 89, 111–135 (in Portuguese). Spolador, H.F.S., Roe, T.L., 2013. The role of agriculture on recent Brazilian economic growth: how agriculture competes for resources. Dev. Econ. 51, 333–359. TCU (Tribunal de Contas da Unia˜o), 2004. Levantamento de auditoria operacional. Minist
erio da Agricultura, Pecua´ria e Abastecimento, Minist
erio do Meio Ambiente, Minist
erio do Desenvolvimento Agra´rio, Brasilia (in Portuguese). Tollefson, G., 2010. Food: the global farm. Nature 466, 554–556. Vogt, K.A., Gara, R.I., Honea, J.M., Vogt, D.J., Weynand, T.P., Roads, P.A., Fanzeres, A., Sigurdardottir, R., 2007. Historical perception and uses of forests. In: Vogt, K.A., Honea, J.M., Vogt, D.J., Andreu, M., Edmonds, R., Sigurdardottir, R., Weynand, T.P. (Eds.), Forest and Society. Sustainability and Life Cycles of Forests in Human Landscapes. CABI Books, Cambridge, pp. 1–28. Walker, R., Moorea, N.J., Arimab, E., Perzc, S., Simmonsa, C., Caldasd, M., Vergara, D., Bohrere, C., 2009. Protecting the Amazon with protected areas. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 10582–10586. Webb, P., Block, S., 2012. Support for agriculture during economic transformation: impacts on poverty and undernutrition. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 12309–12314.