sustainability in eis of sugarcane ethanol...
TRANSCRIPT
Introduction
Conclusion
References
Bardin, L. (1977). Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: edições, 70, 225.
Elkington, J. (2001). Canibais com garfo e faca (p. 444). São Paulo: Makron Books.
Burdge, R. J. (2012). The practice of social impact assessment background. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, v.21, n.2, p.84–88, Feb. 2012.
Chadwick, A. (2002). Socio-economic Impacts: Are They Still the Poor Relations in UK Environmental Statements? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, v.45, n.1, p. 3–24.
Conde, L. C. D. (2012). A análise dos Impactos Socioeconômicos na Estrutura do EIA/RIMA: A importância da abordagem humanista para a sustentabilidade. Rev. Adm., v. 5, Edição Especial, p. 799-804.
Gallardo, A. L. C. F., & Bond, A. (2011)a. Capturing the implications of land use change in Brazil through environmental assessment: Time for a strategic approach?. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(3), 261-270.
Gallardo, A. L. C. F., & Bond, A. (2011)b. Investigating the effectiveness of environmental assessment of land use change: A comparative study of the approaches taken to perennial biomass crop planting in São Paulo and England. Biomass and bioenergy, 35(5), 2285-2297.
Janssen, R., & Rutz, D. D. (2011). Sustainability of biofuels in Latin America: risks and opportunities. Energy Policy, 39(10), 5717-5725.
Morrison-Saunders, A., & Pope, J. (2013). Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 38, 54-63.
Thérivel, R., Wilson, E., Thomson, S., Heaney, D., Pritchard, D. (1992) Strategic Environmental Assessment. London: Earthscan.
Triana, C. A. R. (2011). Energetics of Brazilian ethanol: Comparison between assessment approaches. Energy Policy, 39(8), 4605-4613.
Sustainability in EIS of Sugarcane Ethanol SectorDavi Wilkson F. Sozinho¹, . Amarilis L. C. F. Gallardo 2, Roseli Frederigi Benassi 3
¹ Universidade Federal do ABC, [email protected] Universidade de São Paulo Escola Politécnica and Universidade Nove de Julho, [email protected] Universidade Federal do ABC, [email protected]
Table 1: categorization, distribution and percentage of environmental, social and economic impacts for EIA Figure 2 – Distribution of environmental, social and economic impacts for the 12 EIS
Results and Discussions
Figure 1: Research Steps
Table 1 and Figure 2 represents the categorization, distribution and percentage of environmental, social and economic impacts for each EIS analyzed.
The research shows that there is a strong predominance of environmental issues on social and economic issues in all EIS analyzed in the ethanol sector of the state of São Paulo. It reinforces the expectation of
literature where this imbalance is often encountered. To overcome this more environmental approach, some social and economic actors must become involved in EIA processes from the very beginning to the final
decision-making phase, ensuring that more social and economic aspects are better addressed in the EIA of the sector.
Social and economic indicators
The participation of professionals with experience in social issues in the team responsible for the elaboration of EIS can bring the development of socioeconomic indicators, which can improve the balance of
the sustainability pillars.
Brazil has crucial social and environmental issues, such as large ecosystems, great biodiversity, great sociocultural richness, great social and educational challenges and the necessary economic growth and
reduction of social inequalities. In this context, sustainability is not an urgent need. Social impact assessment (SIA) would also be an alternative, being used as an independent evaluation or in the context of EIS. In
this sense, a wider range of socio-economic impacts would be a step towards greater sustainability.
Methodology
There is a controversial debate with regarding sustainability of sugarcane ethanol production not only in Brazil but in other parts of the world such Southern Africa, Thailand and Latin America (Janssen; Rutz,
2011). Significant negative impacts are inherent in all stages of the sugarcane ethanol production process from agricultural to industrial phase. Brazilian ethanol has been subject of considerable criticism from the
international market that crediting serious problems to environment and social matters to its production (Triana, 2011). Greater sustainability in the sector would be a way to solve such problems. However, what the
literature has pointed out is a greater approach to the environmental impacts in the face of social in the EISsof the sector.
This research has as a problem the following question: is there a balance between the distribution pattern
of the environmental, social and economic impacts of the EIS of sugarcane ethanol plants in the State of
São Paulo?
The objective of this research is to explore the distribution pattern of the environmental, social and
economic impacts described in the EIS of sugarcane ethanol plants in the state of São Paulo, based on the
categorization and classification of these impacts.
Impact Classification
The classification of environmental, social and economic impacts was based on Gallardo and Bond studies (2011a and 2011b)
Categorization EIS
The categorization of impacts was based on Content Analysis (Badin, 1977). The EIS chapters were categorized as: Characterization of impacts and Impact Management Plan.
Sampling the reserch
Environmental Impact Assessment of 12 plants of ethanol Environmental Impact Study of 12 plants in the state of São Paulo that also have Bonsucro certification.
Characterization of the research
Exploratory-descriptive research Documentary research Multi-case study
Enviromental Impact Statement (EIS)number of
impactsenvironmental social economic
Destilaria Alcídia S/A - Teodoro Sampaio (EIS 1)
34 17 - 50% 11 - 32% 6 - 18%
Usina Conquista do Pontal S.A(EIS 2)
22 13 - 59% 7 - 32% 2 - 9%
Guarani S/A – Unidade Industrial Cruz Alta
(EIS 3)
34 16 - 47% 11 - 32% 7 - 21%
Equipav S/A(EIS 4)
38 20 - 53% 10 - 26% 8 - 21%
Franco Brasileira S/A - Unidade Gasa(EIS 5)
23 14 -61% 2 - 9% 7 - 30%
Usina Guariroba (EIS 6)
32 19 - 59% 8 -25% 5 - 16%
Usina Interlagos (EIS 7)
28 12 - 43% 7 - 25% 9 - 32%
Usina Moema açúcar e álcool(EIS 8)
27 16 - 59% 7 - 26% 4 - 15%
Açucareira Quatá (EIS 9)
37 17 - 46% 11 - 30% 9 - 24%
Usina Açucareira São Manoel (EIS 10)
37 19 - 51% 10 - 27% 8 - 22%
Açúcar Guarani – Unidade Industrial Severínia(EIS 11)
38 20 - 53% 11 - 29% 7 - 18%
Cosan Açúcar - Unidade Univalem(EIS 12)
32 15 - 47% 7 - 22% 10 - 31%
Total 382 198 - 52% 102 - 27% 82 - 21%
17
13
16
20
14
19
12
1617
1920
15
11
7
1110
2
87 7
1110
11
76
2
78
7
5
9
4
98
7
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
EIS 1 EIS2 EIS 3 EIS 4 EIS 5 EIS 6 EIS 7 EIS 8 EIS 9 EIS 10 EIS 11 EIS 12
Environmental, Social and Economic impacts for EIS
environmental social economic
The results of this research corroborate aspects raised by several studies on the deficiency of the EIS approach in relation to social impacts, highlighting a biophysical approach of EIS, an environmental
defense tool, as opposed to a more balanced approach between environmental, social and economic aspects, Of sustainability according to the Triple Bottom Line (Elkington, 2001) (Morrison-Saunders, 2011;
Morrison-Saunders and Pope, 2013; Chadwick, 2002; Gallardo and Bond, 2011; Condé, 2012; Burdge, 2012; Thérivel et al., 1992).
From Table 1 and Figure 2, of the total of 382 impacts presented in the 12 EIS: 198 (52%) are
environmental; 102 (27%) are social and 82 (21%) are economic. There is a strong predominance of
environmental impacts (generally over 50% considering each EIA) and then the social and economic impacts
on all EISs. Social impacts are second only to environmental impacts. The number of economic impacts
exceeded social impact only in 3 EIS (EIS 4, EIS 11 and EIS 12).
Acknowledgment
.
I would like to thank PROPG - UFABC's postgraduate program for the financial assistance I have received that enabled me to come to this event.