THE SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS FROM CROP BIOTECHNOLOGY IN BRAZIL: 1996/97 2010/11 The case of GM cotton The case of GM corn The case of herbicide- tolerant soybeans Preface This document aims at commenting on the main results of the study on "The social and environmental benefits from biotechnology adoption: 1996/97-2010/11 1/ conducted by Céleres Ambiental 2/ in the second half of 2011. Such analysis will reveal the results of the social and environmental benefits obtained as a result of the adoption of GM cotton, GM corn and herbicide- tolerant soybeans. 1/ The full report with the study on "The social and environmental benefits from biotechnology adoption: 1996/97-2010/11" may be accessed at the website www.celeres.com.br 2/ Céleres Ambiental is an environmental consulting firm that operates in the agribusiness sector, based in Uberlândia, Minas Gerais. Seeking to adapt to market requirements, it has reached proven competence in environmental management projects in the sugar cane - ethanol industry, forestry, and grain production. Table of Contents The social and environmental benefits from biotechnology in Brazil: 1996/97 to 2010/11... 2 Comparison of social and environmental benefits from biotechnology in Brazil: 2008/09 and 2009/10 crop season... 3 Projection of social and environmental benefits from biotechnology in Brazil: 2010/11 to 2019/20...5 The social and environmental attractiveness of biotechnology in Brazil...6 The efficiency in the use of agrochemicals with the adoption of biotechnology...7 Final Considerations...8 Figure 1. Environmental benefits from 1996/97 to 2010/11: Water Use...3 Figure 2. Environmental benefits from 1996/97 to 2010/11: Use of diesel...3 Figure 3. Environmental benefits from 1996/97 to 2010/11:...3 Figure 4. Environmental benefits from 1996/97 to 2010/11: Use of active ingredient...3 Figure 5. Environmental benefits 2009/10 crop season: water use...3 Figure 6. Environmental benefits 2010/11 crop season: water use...4 Figure 7. Environmental benefits 2009/10 crop season: diesel oil...4 Figure 8. Environmental benefits 2010/11 crop season: diesel oil...4 Figure 9. Environmental benefits 2009/10 crop season: CO 2 emissions...4 Figure 10. Environmental benefits 2010/11 crop season: CO 2 emissions...4 Figure 11. Environmental benefits 2009/10 crop season: use of active ingredients 4 Figure 12. Environmental benefits 2010/11 crop season: use of active ingredients 5 Figure 13. Social and environmental benefits projected for the 2011/12 to 2020/21 period: water use...5 Figure 14. Social and environmental benefits projected for the period from 2011/12 to 2020/21: the use of diesel oil...5 Figure 15. Social and environmental benefits projected for the period from 2011/12 to 2020/21: carbon gas emissions...5 Figure 16. Social and environmental benefits projected for the period from 2010/11 to 2019/20: use of active ingredients...5 Figure 17. GM cotton: Social and environmental attractiveness / risk matrix in the 2010/11 crop season...6 Figure 18. GM corn, summer crop: Social and environmental attractiveness / risk matrix in the 2010/11 crop season...6 1
Figure 19. GM corn, winter crop: Social and environmental attractiveness / risk matrix in the 2010/11 crop season... 7 Figure 20. GM soybeans: Social and environmental attractiveness / risk matrix in the 2010/11 crop season... 7 Figure 21. GM cotton: compared use of agrochemicals in Mato Grosso (2010/11 crop season)... 7 Figure 22. GM corn, compared use of agrochemicals in Paraná (2010/11 summer crop season)... 7 Figure 23. GM corn, compared use of agrochemicals in Mato Grosso (winter crop 2010/11)... 8 Figure 24. GM soybeans, compared use of agrochemicals in Paraná (2009/10 crop season)... 8 Figure 25. Increase in planted area, with the non- adoption of crop biotechnology 8 The social and environmental benefits from biotechnology in Brazil: 1996/97 to 2010/11 The next three chapters will discuss the social and environmental benefits associated with the adoption of biotechnology in Brazil, considering three periods. Firstly, the period from 1996/97 to 2010/11 will be examined, then, it will be compared to the benefits achieved in the 2009/10 and 2010/11 crop seasons, and finally, the future period between 2011/12 and 2020/21 will be analyzed. For the analyses of the social and the environmental benefits during the periods mentioned above, available and already marketed events in Brazil were considered, namely: herbicide- tolerant soybeans, insect- resistant cotton, herbicide- tolerant cotton, insect- resistant corn, and stacked corn. In recent decades, the global society has developed a greater concern with the quality of human life, necessarily conditioned to protect the environment. This perception gained force with the accelerated population growth and instability over food security. According to information released by FAO - United Nations Organization for Food and Agriculture, in 2010 there was a critical level of hunger in the world, the number of people without access to food once again broke the barrier of one people, mainly in the African and Asian countries, reversing a downward trend in that figure as had been the case in recent years. Part of this fact can be associated to hikes in food prices, the global financial crisis, and the significant increase of natural disasters. According to researchers from around the world and FAO data, food production must increase by nearly 70% to feed a population of 9.3 people by 2050. Undoubtedly, a social aspect with strong environmental implications, since the scarcity of land is a limiting factor for increasing production and productivity. Thus, farmers will be forced into becoming more efficient in their areas of cultivation, instead of expanding their properties. The intensified food production has traditionally meant increasing dependence on agrochemicals and fertilizers, in addition to leading to excessive water consumption, which can degrade soil and water resources. According to FAO, the sustainable increase of agricultural production depends on the rational use of agricultural inputs with relatively acceptable levels of toxicity, at the appropriate time in the crop s growth cycle and in adequate amounts. In this context, biotechnology is presented as a tool capable of contributing with more sustainable agricultural practices that reduce pressure on natural resources. In addition, it proves to be effective in promoting biodiversity and helps to grow food in marginal land, from an agronomic point of view. Over the past five years, Céleres Ambiental has followed the evolution of the use of crop biotechnology and the social and environmental benefits arising from it for the Brazilian agriculture. The study this year, considering the data from the 2010/11 agricultural campaign, shows that the level of benefits is increasing to the extent that producers are adopting biotechnology more and more. Within this context, the following factors will be analyzed: water use, use of diesel oil, carbon gas emissions, and the use of active ingredients. Considering the volume of water used in agriculture, the adoption of biotechnology in Brazil has contributed effectively to the reduction of 21.2, equivalent to supplying water to a population of 483.9 thousand people over the period from 1996/97 to 2010/11 (Figure 1). Out of this total, the water use reduction related to the soybean plantations that have adopted biotechnology represents 76%; such percentage is justified by the extension of the cultivated area and stems from the fact that this technology has been available in the market for a longer time. In turn, the farms that adopted genetically modified cotton accounted for a 2% reduction in the total percentage of water volume, reflecting the smaller area planted with cotton when compared to other crops. The reduced volume of water used in agriculture involved a significant contribution of the GM corn plantations, with a participation of 22% of the volume. Given the current global concern on water distribution and quality, the importance of biotechnology as an instrument for providing benefits that lead to the protection of natural resources is undeniable. Regarding the reduction in diesel consumption in farms that have adopted biotechnology in Brazil, the benefit reached a savings of 176.6 million. This volume would be enough for supplying a fleet of 73.6 thousand light vehicles in the period from 1996/97 to 2010/11 (Figure 2). Another benefit analyzed with the adoption of biotech crops was the reduction in CO 2 emissions from the burning of diesel fuel used in agricultural machinery. In the period between 1996/97 and 2010/11, the adoption of biotechnology reduced CO 2 emissions by 468.4 thousand tons, which equates to preserving 3.5 million trees in a riparian forest (Figure 3). The percentages are maintained, as observed in the discussion on the previous benefits provided by each GM crop. Due to the amount that is emitted, the CO 2 gas is the biggest contributor to global warming. Its emissions represent nearly 50% of total global GHG emissions. Thus, in the view of the rising pressure from society regarding the greenhouse effect, and as a consequence of the global effort in trying to reduce these gases, the benefits discussed above underscore the importance of biotechnology as a tool for natural resource protection and maintaining the quality of life of the population. The reduction in the use of active ingredients recorded for the period from 1996/97 to 2010/11, in plantations with GM crops, was also significant (Figure 4). The reduction for this period in Brazil was of 14.5 thousand tons, which amount would be the same as 88.8% of electric power being consumed in a city having 600 thousand inhabitants, with the drop in electric power used to manufacture agrochemicals. Given the levels of pollution in the soil and water resources caused by the improper use of agrochemicals, a savings of nearly 15 thousand tons from the use of active ingredients in plantations with GM crops has contributed effectively towards protecting the environment and the quality of people's lives. 2
Figure 1. Environmental benefits from 1996/97 to 2010/11: Water Use 76.2% 1.8% 21.2 22.0% Note: : 1996/97 to 2010/11 : 2004/05 to 2010/11; : 2008/09 to 2010/11. Figure 4. Environmental benefits from 1996/97 to 2010/11: Use of active ingredient 54.3% 14.5 11.1% 34.6% Equivalent to 483.9 thousand people being serviced in the period 1/ 1/ Given the daily consumption of 120 per person recommended by the UN. Note: : 1996/97 to 2010/11 : 2004/05 to 2010/11; : 2008/09 to 2010/11. Figure 2. Environmental benefits from 1996/97 to 2010/11: Use of diesel 76.2% 2/ Whereas the average consumption of a light diesel- run vehicle, with mileage of 24 thousand kilometers/ year and consumption of 10 km/l Note: : 1996/97 to 2010/11 : 2004/05 to 2010/11; : 2008/09 to 2010/11. Figure 3. Environmental benefits from 1996/97 to 2010/11: CO 2 emissions 76.2% 1.8% 176.6 million 22.0% Equivalent to 73,6 thousand diesel-run vehicles being fueled in the period 2/ 1.8% 468.4 CO 2 22.0% Equivalent to 88.8% of electric power consumed in a city with 600 thou inhabit./year 4/ 4/ Given the electric power spent to manufacture herbicides and insecticides Note: : 1996/97 to 2010/11 : 2004/05 to 2010/11; : 2008/09 to 2010/11. Comparison of social and environmental benefits from biotechnology in Brazil: 2009/10 and 2010/11 crop seasons In this chapter, the social and environmental benefits achieved through the use of crop biotechnology will be compared between the crop seasons of 2009/10 and 2010/11. The factors analyzed are the ones that have already been discussed in the previous chapter, namely: water use, the use of diesel, emissions of carbon dioxide, and the use of active ingredients. The analysis of water use in plantations with GM crops, in the two seasons mentioned, especially for events with insect resistance (cotton and corn), shows that the more efficient the technology, the greater the volume of water that will no longer be used in these plantations due to the reduction in agrochemical applications. As a consequence, there will be better acceptance by producers and larger area sown with biotech crops. Thus, in the 2009/10 crop season, the volume of water that was no longer used in GM plantations was 3.6 (Figure 5), while in 2010/11 this volume reached 5.0 of water (Figure 6), an increase of 1.4 in terms of benefits when compared to the second crop season. It is also important to observe that there was a significant participation of biotech corn in the total benefits from biotechnology for the water use factor. The participation of corn in the 2009/10 crop season accounted for 43.2%, reaching in 2010/11, 53.6% of the total benefits generated. Figure 5. Environmental benefits 2009/10 crop season: water use Equivalent to 3.5 million trees 3/ 3/ Considering riparian forest species. 3
55.4% 1.3% 3.6 Figure 6. Environmental benefits 2010/11 crop season: water use 2.7% 43.2% As a result of the use of diesel in agricultural machinery, the reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide was also analyzed with the adoption of biotech crops in Brazil. In this context, for the 2009/10 crop season, the reduction of CO 2 emissions reached 78.8 thousand tons, while in the following crop season, i.e., 2010/11, this reduction in carbon dioxide emissions reached 111.4 thousand tons, which corresponds to an effective benefit of 32, 6 thousand tons of CO 2 that are no longer released into the atmosphere from one crop season to another. Figure 9. Environmental benefits 2009/10 crop season: CO 2 emissions 1.3% 43.7% 5.0 53.6% 55.4% 78.8 CO 2 43.2% In relation to diesel oil used in farm machinery in transgenic crops in the 2009/10 crop season, there was a savings of 29.7 million (Figure 7). In the 2010/11 crop season, the GM crops contributed to saving 42.0 million of diesel oil in machinery (Figure 8), corresponding to an increase in benefits of 12.3 million from one harvest to another. Once more it can be observed that corn experienced a significant growth in its participation in the total benefits from biotechnology, 43.2% in 2009/10 to 53.6% in the 2010/11 crop season. Figure 10. Environmental benefits 2010/11 crop season: CO 2 emissions 43.7% 2.7% 111.4 CO 2 53.6% Figure 7. Environmental benefits 2009/10 crop season: diesel oil 55.4% 1.3% 29.7 million 43.2% Figure 8. Environmental benefits 2010/11 crop season: diesel oil 2.7% The reduction in the use of active ingredients in crops that have adopted biotechnology in Brazil reached 2.7 thousand tons in the 2009/10 harvest, in comparison to 4.9 thousand tons in the 2010/11 harvest. Effectively, 2.2 thousand tons of active ingredients ceased to be released in the soils over the last two seasons, contributing to a greater protection of the environment, reduced contamination of water resources and the farm workers health. It is important to highlight that the corn crop in the 2010/11 crop season earned the largest share of the benefit, reaching 61.87% of the total. In the prior 2009/10 crop season, the participation in the total benefit of the crop was equivalent to 57.3%. Figure 11. Environmental benefits 2009/10 crop season: use of active ingredients 6.6% 43.7% 42.0 million 53.6% 36.1% 2.7 57.3% 4
Figure 12. Environmental benefits 2010/11 crop season: use of active ingredients 22.5% Projection of social and environmental benefits from biotechnology in Brazil: 2011/12 to 2020/21 In this chapter, the projections for the social and environmental benefits from plantations employing biotechnology for the period from 2011/12 to 2020/21 will be analyzed. The same assumptions related to the events considered and the factors analyzed will be maintained. Regarding the use of water for the future period under consideration, the benefit predicted is a savings of 148.8 in plantations that are expected to adopt biotech crops. This volume would be equivalent to supplying a population of 3.4 million people with water for the period from 2011/12 to 2020/21. Within this context, according to the projection presented, soybeans will participate with 55.7% of the total benefits, corn with 38.9% and cotton with 5.4%. Figure 13. Social and environmental benefits projected for the 2011/12 to 2020/21 period: water use 55.7% 4.9 15.7% 148.8 61.8% 5.4% 38.9% For emissions of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere due to the use of diesel in agricultural machinery, considering the adoption of biotech crops in Brazil for the future period being considered, it is projected that approximately 3.29 thousand tons of this gas would cease to be released into the atmosphere (Figure 15). This volume would be equivalent to preserving 24.2 million riparian forest trees. Finally, the use of active ingredients was projected for the period from 2011/12 to 2020/21, assuming biotechnology is adopted. As such, the reduction in volume of active ingredients used forecasted for the period would be of 146.4 thousand tons (Figure 16). It is important to highlight that the crop with the largest benefit participation in the future will be cotton, reaching a 42.6% share, as compared to 36.4% for corn, followed by soybeans with 21.0%. Figure 14. Social and environmental benefits projected for the period from 2011/12 to 2020/21: the use of diesel oil 55.7% 2/ Whereas the average consumption of a light diesel- run vehicle, with mileage of 24 thousand kilometers/year and consumption of 10 km/l Figure 15. Social and environmental benefits projected for the period from 2011/12 to 2020/21: carbon gas emissions 55.7% 1.24 5.4% Equivalent to 516.6 thousand diesel-run vehicles fueled in the period 2/ 3,288 CO 2 5.4% 38.9% 38.9% Equivalent to 3.4 million people serviced in the period 1/ Given the daily consumption of 120 per person recommended by the UN. Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL, based on own research. Equivalent to 24.2 million trees preserved Another factor considered in the social and environmental projections was the use of diesel spent on agricultural machinery in GM plantations. The volume of diesel saved in Brazilian plantations that are expected to adopt GM crops would be 1.24. This volume would be enough for supplying a fleet of 516.6 thousand light vehicles for the period considered in the projections (figure 14). Just as for water use, the participations predicted for each crop for the total environmental benefits remains constant. 3/ Considering riparian forest species.. Figure 16. Social and environmental benefits projected for the period from 2010/11 to 2019/20: use of active ingredients 5
21.0% 36.4% 146.4 42.6% Equivalent to 9 years of electric power serviced to 600 thousand inhabitants 4/ Given the electric power spent to manufacture herbicides and insecticides N: Score assigned to each variable defined for social and environmental attractiveness and risk, as an indicator of relevance; W: weight assigned to each variable; In which N stands for attractiveness as: (Minimum and Maximum 0: 10) and N for risk as: (Minimum and Maximum 10: 0), bearing in mind that at least one variable must have a score of 10. In which W is the weight assigned to each variable ranging between 0.0 and 1.0, with a total score of 1.0. Based on the method described above, matrices were individually constructed for each crop, the results of which, shown in the graphs that follow, were obtained from interviews with farmers. In total, 360 farmers were interviewed, distributed along key states where cotton, corn and soybeans are grown in Brazil. Figure 17. GM cotton: Social and environmental attractiveness / risk matrix in the 2010/11 crop season y = 3,1984ln(x) - 2,6689 The social and environmental attractiveness of biotechnology in Brazil Aiming at evaluating the social and environmental benefits, a methodology was developed called social and environmental attractiveness/risk matrix, which sought the grounds upon which to evaluate the farmers' perceptions in regard to general issues of social and environmental aspects and specific issues of the biotech crops considered in this study. The points raised were a precondition for analyzing the perception of farmers on issues such as the influence of GM crops in the physical environment (soil, water, and air) and biodiversity aspects of food security, health and safety of rural workers, quality of life, bio- security, and agricultural production. Endeavoring to provide information to assist the studies on the environmental impact of crop biotechnology in Brazil, the methodology created was an adaptation of the SWOT analysis method and the strategic positioning of Porter. These methodologies were used in preparing future scenarios, determining the environmental indicators and assessing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that influence the environment. In this study, the strengths and opportunities were called environmental attractiveness, while weaknesses and threats were called environmental risk, aiming at showing the advantages and disadvantages of adopting genetically modified products. The interviews with the farmers gathered data on the values of relevance (weights) and effectiveness (response) for each indicator considered in a relative manner (taking into consideration the importance of each indicator as compared to each other), so as to reach the indexes for the desired evaluations. These indexes result from multiplying the values assigned for relevance (from 0-100%) by the values of effectiveness (from 0: poor response, and 10: superior response) for each impact. The following is the mathematical rational used for the analysis definition of environmental attractiveness and risk. Risco ambiental Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL, based on 2010/11 field research. Figure 18. GM corn, summer crop: Social and environmental attractiveness / risk matrix in the 2010/11 crop season Risco ambiental y = -1,499ln(x) + 6,5589 Atratividade ambiental Atratividade ambiental Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL, based on 2010/11 field research. At n! N W 1 Ri n! N W 1 Where: At: social and environmental attractiveness; Ri: social and environmental risk; n!: Total number of interviews with farmers; 6
three crops for which biotechnology is already in use in Brazil have very favorable characteristics from a social and environmental perspective. This fact can be evidenced for the three crops upon the analysis of their respective matrices, where the midpoint is located in the best level quadrant of attractiveness and in that of the lowest social and environmental risk. The efficiency in the use of agrochemicals with the adoption of biotechnology Figure 19. GM corn, winter crop: Social and environmental attractiveness / risk matrix in the 2010/11 crop season Risco ambiental Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL, based on 2010/11 field research. Figure 20. GM soybeans: Social and environmental attractiveness / risk matrix in the 2010/11 crop season Risco ambiental y = 1,1945ln(x) + 1,9503 y = 0,5828ln(x) + 2,2181 Atratividade ambiental Besides interviewing farmers, for the methodology of this study technical assistance service companies and research institutions were also interviewed, aiming at setting a benchmark for the production models for the three crops. The main reason for the benchmark analysis is to compare an optimal production model to the existing practices in the field. To analyze the case of cotton, the benchmark selected was the producing regions in Mato Grosso and Bahia, taking into account the different technology packages recommended for each of these regions. In the case of Mato Grosso, the results of the use of active ingredients are described in Figure 7. Figure 21. GM cotton: compared use of agrochemicals in Mato Grosso (2010/11 crop season) 16,0 1 12,0 10,0 8,0 6,0 2,0 0,0 Classe I Classe II Classe III Classe IV Total 1 13,5 12,6 Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL. Values in kg of a.i. / hectare. 13,6 12,0 Conv. RI- 1 TH- 1 RI/TH- 1 RI- 2 The benchmark data analysis for the state of Mato Grosso showed that the adoption of the IR- 1 cotton suggests a reduction of 3.6% in the total volume of active ingredients used in relation to conventional cotton. Comparing conventional cotton with HT- 1 cotton, a reduction of 10.0% can be observed in the use of active ingredients. For the corn in the summer crop, the benchmark data analysis for Paraná showed a 32.3% reduction in the total volume of active ingredients used in corn plantations that have adopted the IR- 1 corn, compared to the volume of active ingredients in the conventional agronomic management of corn, as shown in Figure 8. Figure 22. GM corn, compared use of agrochemicals in Paraná (2010/11 summer crop season) Atratividade ambiental Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL, based on 2010/11 field research. It is inferred that, despite the small variation in the attractiveness / risk highlighted in the matrices above, the 7
7,0 6,0 5,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 0,0 Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL. Values in kg of a.i. / hectare. With the adoption of the IR- 2 corn, the use of active ingredients reached a reduction of 32.3% of the total volume used on the crop. The use of the IR/HT technology package, as the IR- 1, showed no products classified under toxicological classes I and II. Emphasizing that the IR/HT corn showed a 27.4% drop in its active ingredients usage. In analyzing the use of active ingredients in the winter corn, in Mato Grosso, the technology package considered for the benchmark indicates that the adoption of the IR- 1 corn favors a reduction in the total volume of active ingredients by 5.4%, when compared to conventional corn (Figure 9). For the IR- 2 technology, the reduction was of 37.8%. For the IR/HT technology, the drop in a.i. usage was of 16.2%. It is important to emphasize that the active ingredients used in the IR- 1, IR/HT, IR/HT- 2, and IR/HT- 4 technologies did not present products belonging to class I, extremely toxic, which represents a smaller impact on the environment and health of rural workers (Figure 9). Figure 23. GM corn, compared use of agrochemicals in Mato Grosso (winter crop 2010/11) 3,5 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 Classe I Classe II Classe III Classe IV Total 6,2 6,0 4,2 Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL. Values in kg of a.i. / hectare. In turn, the analysis of soybean production in Paraná showed once again that the adoption of GM soybeans has resulted in a higher volume of active ingredients used in the management of the crop, although this increase applies to active ingredients with a lower impact on the environment and health of farm workers. With the RR2 soybean technology, one can further observe a drop of 64.3% in the use of active ingredients under toxicological class I products, and with the Bt/RR2 soybeans, a total elimination of toxicological products under this class (Figure 10). 4,5 3,6 Conv. RI- 1 RI- 2 RI/TH RI/TH- 2 RI/TH- 3 RI/TH- 4 Classe I Classe II Classe III Classe IV Total 3,7 3,5 2,3 3,1 3,1 2,3 3,1 Conv. RI- 1 RI- 2 RI/TH RI/TH- 2 RI/TH- 3 RI/TH- 4 Figure 24. GM soybeans, compared use of agrochemicals in Paraná (2009/10 crop season) 5,0 4,5 3,5 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL. Values in kg of a.i. / hectare. Final Considerations Over the next decade, the adoption of biotechnology for the soybean, corn, and cotton crops has the potential of providing significant environmental gains for both farmers and the Brazilian society. Considering the assumption of a rise in demand for these agricultural products, it is clear that there will be a need to further expand agricultural production. In this scenario, as biotechnology improves, alongside of other agricultural practices, allowing for even more impressive productivity growth rates, we will have, as a consequence, a smaller need for the physical expansion of the cultivated area. Within the horizon of the 2011/12 and 2020/21 crop seasons, with the potential for further growth in productivity for the three crops analyzed in this study, soybean cultivation will surpass the current 24.1 million hectares to 32.9 million hectares. Thus, the accumulated planting for the next ten years would amount to a total of 278.2 million hectares. It is projected that the total planting of soybeans during the period will require 286.9 million hectares in a scenario in which biotechnology is not adopted, resulting in an opportunity cost, under an environmental perspective, of nearly nine million hectares. Undeniably, given the foregoing, there is an environmental benefit related to the protection of the remaining forest areas that would no longer need to be cleared. Figure 25. Increase in planted area, with the non- adoption of crop biotechnology 70,00 60,00 50,00 40,00 30,00 20,00 10,00 0,00 Classe I Classe II Classe III Classe IV Total 3,1 3,6 Source: CÉLERES AMBIENTAL. Figures in millions of hectares In the case of corn, for the next ten years, projections indicate a growth in cultivated area within a biotech scenario - of 158.4 million hectares, while without biotechnology, and therefore, with a smaller rise in productivity, the area is expected to reach 4,4 3,4 Conv. TH- 1 TH- 2 RI/TH- 1 Área, com adoção da biotecnologia Área, sem adoção da biotecnologia 8
203.7 million hectares. That would translate into an additional effort of 45.4 million hectares to produce the same volume of corn. Finally, for cotton, the adoption of crop biotechnology may lead to a reduction in the total area to be planted of 2.04 million hectares, with the total area sown over the next years remaining at 21.6 million hectares, if the current assumptions for biotechnology adoption and its respective environmental gains are to be maintained. On the other hand, a scenario without this technology would require a total of 23.7 million hectares. Analyzing the three crops, Brazilian farmers are expected to sow, over the next decade, a total of 458.2 million hectares, based on the biotechnology adoption assumptions used in this study. In a biotech- crop free scenario, the estimated total planting would be of 514.3 million hectares, resulting in an additional environmental cost of 56.1 million hectares over the next ten years. In summary, one cannot overlook the potential of biotechnology as an important problem solving tool for the conservation of the remaining native vegetation areas. 9