The Impact of Brazilian Biofuel Production on

Amazonia
Robert Walker
Department of Geography, Michigan State University
Global energy demand will increase through the twenty-first century. Competition for energy resources has
already revealed geopolitical fault lines, and the dependence of industrial economies on fossil fuel promises to
keep nations on edge. A widespread consensus has emerged that societies must transition to a new energy basis,
given that fossil fuel is nonrenewable and its combustion leads to global warming. Although alternatives like
nuclear energy and hydropower provide important electrical supplies locally, the search goes on, and recently
much attention has focused on biofuel. Although biofuel represents a renewable and green energy, there is also
a downside. This article considers one potential problem, namely, the impact of growing international biofuel
demand on Amazonia. The article focuses on Brazil, given the explosive growth of Brazilian agriculture, and
notable effects on forests within its national borders. The article seeks to answer this question: How will global
demand for Brazils land-based commodities, including biofuel, impact its tropical forest in the Amazon basin? In
attempting to answer this question, the article describes recent agricultural expansion in Brazil and its emergent
landscape of renewable energy. Using an adaptation of rent theory, it frames a concept of landscape cascade and
shows how Brazils expanding landscape of renewable energy is impacting forest areas at a great distance. The
article then considers recent projections of demand for Amazonian land out to 2020, given growth of Brazilian
biofuel production and cattle herds. The projections indicate that more Amazonian land will be demanded than
has been made available by Brazilian environmental policy. With this result in mind, the article discusses the
discursive dismemberment of Amazonia and how this articulates with efforts by Brazilian politicians to increase
the regions land supply. The article points out that agricultural intensification holds the key to meeting global
demand without degrading the Amazonian forest, a landscape unique in the world for its ecological and cultural
riches. Key Words: Amazonia, biofuel, Brazil, deforestation.

La demanda global de energa se incrementara durante el siglo XXI. La competencia por los recursos energeticos
ya revela lneas de falla geopolticas, y la dependencia de las economas industriales de combustibles fosiles
promete mantener algunas naciones en vilo. Ha emergido un consenso generalizado de que las sociedades deben
hacer la transicion hacia nuevas bases de energa, en consideracion a que el combustible fosil no es renovable
y a que su combustion lleva al calentamiento global. Aunque alternativas como la energa nuclear y la energa
hidraulica proveen localmente una importante oferta de electricidad, la busqueda sigue adelante y recientemente
mucha de la atencion se ha concentrado en los biocombustibles. Aunque el biocombustible representa una
energa renovable y verde, tambien tiene su lado malo. Este artculo considera un problema potencial, es decir,
C 2011 by Association of American Geographers
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(4) 2011, pp. 929938

Initial submission, February 2010; revised submission, September 2010; final acceptance, December 2010
Published by Taylor & Francis, LLC.

930

Walker
el impacto de la creciente demanda internacional de biocombustibles sobre la Amazonia. Este artculo esta
enfocado en Brasil, dado el explosivo crecimiento de su agricultura y los notables efectos que eso tiene sobre las
selvas ubicadas dentro de sus fronteras. El artculo busca la respuesta a esta pregunta: Como sera el impacto de la
demanda global por los productos brasilenos
basados en tierra, incluyendo los biocombustibles, sobre sus bosques
tropicales en la cuenca amazonica? Intentando resolver esta cuestion, el artculo describe la reciente expansion
agrcola del Brasil y su emergente paisaje de energa renovable. Haciendo uso de una adaptacion de la teora de
la renta, esta enmarca un concepto de cascada de paisajes y muestra como el paisaje de de la energa renovable
en expansion esta impactando las a reas de bosque a grandes distancias. El artculo considera luego recientes
proyecciones de la demanda de tierra amazonica hasta el 2020, dado el crecimiento de la produccion brasilena

en biocombustibles y la expansion del hato ganadero. Las proyecciones indican que se demandara mas tierra
amazonica de la que pueda ponerse a disposicion mediante la poltica ambiental brasilena.
El artculo destaca el
hecho de que la intensificacion en la agricultura es la clave para satisfacer la demanda global, sin que se degrade
la selva amazonica, un paisaje u nico en el mundo por su riqueza ecologica y cultural. Palabras clave: Amazonia,
biocombustibles, Brasil, deforestacion.

nergy demand will increase through the twentyfirst century, particularly with economic growth
in countries like China and India. This has
sparked widespread concern, given societal dependence
on nonrenewable fossil fuels, the exploitation of which
enables industrialization but also makes the world
dangerous. Now, global warming from greenhouse gas
buildup joins violence in the Middle East as a grim
consequence of our reliance on an energy resource we
always knew would have to be replaced (Odum 1971).
Although nuclear energy and hydropower provide
important electrical supplies locally, the search goes on
for a viable alternative, and much attention presently
focuses on biofuel. Biofuel appears to provide a green
panacea to the energy problem. It also raises its own
issues (Zimmerer 2011), and this article considers one
of them: the likely effects of growing biofuel demand
on Amazonia.
Recently, Brazilian agriculture has boomed, and new
demands for land have sparked speculative frenzies
in real estate markets on the margins of Amazonia
(Almeida 2009). The articles goal is to consider
how expanding Brazilian agriculture, driven partly
by biofuel markets, will impact this ecologically rich
region. It poses a question: To what extent does Brazils
expanding landscape of renewable energy production
impose an ecological compensation, by reducing in
equal measure the ancient forests of Amazonia? As the
watershed containing the river that bears its name,
Amazonia, covers more than 7 million km2 and includes parts of Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Peru,
and Venezuela. Although certain of these countries
contribute Amazonian landscapes to global markets
for agricultural commodities, this article focuses on
the Brazilian portion alone, given its disproportionate
magnitude and the dynamism of Brazilian agriculture.

The article begins answering its central question in

the next two sections, which consider Amazonian development efforts and the institutional forces that have
stimulated Brazils biofuel sector. It then conceptualizes landscape implications for Amazonia by appeal to
rent theory, showing that more Amazonian land might
soon be demanded than Brazilian conservation policy
has made available. Having demonstrated the possibility of excess demands, the article next addresses the
political campaign underway to increase Amazonian
land supplies, including efforts to discursively reinvent
the region. It concludes by pointing out how Brazils
expanding landscapes of renewable energy could exert
unexpected impacts on Amazonian forests.

Brazilian Amazonia Today

Definitional Considerations
A hydrologic basin of continental magnitude,
Amazonia attained juridical status in Brazil during the
presidency of Getulio Vargas, with the creation of
Amazonia Legal (AML), a planning entity, in 1953.
Presently, AML covers the Brazilian states of Acre,
Amapa, Amazonas, Mato Grosso, Para, Rondonia, Roraima, Tocantins, and part of Maranhao. More recently,
Brazilian agencies have provided an ecological definition with the Amazonian Biome, a topic discussed
in the sequel. This bureaucratic designation follows
the floristic fact that the Amazon basin includes both
closed moist forest and drier savannas, or cerrados, on
its southern and eastern margins. Thus, agricultural development in AML need not always occur at the direct
expense of forest. As for biofuel, this term covers a
wide range of plant-based energy forms, two of which

The Impact of Brazilian Biofuel Production on Amazonia

are significant for Brazil: ethanol from sugarcane and
diesel from soy. These two feedstocks also provide a
wide range of nonfuel commodities, but their botanical
chemistry yields combustible hydrocarbons in concentrated forms. The United States also produces ethanol,
with corn as a feedstock, and presently there is much
discussion of cellulosic conversion using perennials like
switchgrass (James, Swinton, and Thelen 2010). The
discussion here recognizes this long-run possibility but
focuses on sugarcane and soy given the immediacy of
their impacts for the Brazilian case (cf. Lapola et al.
2010).
Amazonian Agriculture and Ranching
Mechanized agriculture and ranching have expanded dramatically in AML, which now produces
a wide variety of crops, notably soy, and supports a
large cattle herd. Agricultural development began in
earnest with policies implemented during the military
regime (Moran 1981; Hecht 1985). The restoration of
democracy in the mid-1980s redirected some attention
to the environment and indigenous rights in the region,
but successive administrations sustained infrastructure
investments, and monetary reform has greatly facilitated export (Simmons 2002; Brandao, Rezende, and
Marquest 2005). The advance of soy into Amazonia,
especially along the basins drier cerrado margins, has
also been stimulated by genetic improvements that enable Amazonian farmers to produce about 3 ton-ha1 ,
30 percent more than the national average (Walker,
DeFries, et al. 2009). Soy provides between 35 and 40
percent of gross farm revenues in AML, which translates into a third of Brazils entire harvest (IBGE 2010).
As a propulsive sector, soy partly accounts for the importance of other crops, like maize, with which it grows
in rotation. For its part, cattle ranching has expanded
in both cerrado and forested parts of AML with the
control of foot and mouth disease and the development
of forages from African grasses (Walker, Browder, et al.
2009). Modern ranching techniques, low land prices,
transportation cost reductions, and abundant sunshine
make Amazonian ranching profitable, and AMLs
70 million animals account for about 35 percent of
the national herd (Arima, Barreto, and Brito 2005).
Biofuel expansion in Brazil cannot avoid impacting
Amazonia by virtue of its soy production base and
landscape links to the cattle economy, to be discussed
later. Sugarcane, mostly grown in non-Amazonian
locations due to humidity constraints that lower sugar
content, also possesses potential impact via these

931

same landscape mechanisms (Companhia Nacional de

Abastecimento 2008; Lapola et al. 2010).

The Emerging Bioeconomy

The appeal of biofuel as an alternative to fossil fuel
has stirred many governments into action (International Energy Agency 2004). The United States, for
example, is attempting to steer its economy toward renewable fuels through legislative initiative, such as the
Energy Policy Act (2005), which created renewable
fuels standards. This was recently intensified by the
Energy Independence and Security Act (2007), stipulating that 36 billion gallons of ethanol be used as
motor fuel by 2022 (Low and Isserman 2009). Similar
efforts are underway in Brazil, long a leader in biofuel
development, an outcome of the ProAlcool program
initiated in the wake of the oil embargo of the 1970s
(International Energy Agency 2006). Currently, flex
fuel vehicles capable of using any ratio of ethanol-togasoline blend account for 72 percent of Brazils automotive production (ANFAVEA 2010). As part of its
drive to bioenergize, Brazil has stimulated ethanol output and now commands 50 percent of the global market.
Demands for ethanol, together with more traditional
sugar production, place 80,000 km2 under cane, mostly
concentrated in Sao Paulo State (International Energy
Agency 2006; IBGE 2010). Brazil has also diversified
its biofuel sector with the ProDiesel program, aimed
at increasing the production of diesel from soy (International Energy Agency 2006). Presently, soy-based
biodiesel represents a fraction of the marketable use of
the crop, a situation that could change as a function of
future demands (Amaral 2010; Wilkinson and Herrera
2010).
Despite significant potential, biofuel has its downside. Shifting fields to fuel production raises food prices,
with consequences for the poor, who pay for more expensive farm goods as they lose lands for subsistence
agriculture (Naylor et al. 2007). Other problems are environmental. Biofuel production causes pollution and
stresses renewable resources like water (International
Energy Agency 2004). An additional concern arises
from the demand for land at the global scale, likely
to be provided by Africa and Latin America, particularly Brazil (Gurgel, Reilly, and Paltsev 2007). Because Brazil enjoys relatively good infrastructure and
efficient commodity chains, it is well positioned to funnel global biofuel demands to its own producers (Pingali, Raney, and Wiebe 2008). Aside from displacing

932

Walker

smallholders unable to exploit emerging market opportunities, this creates a biofuel carbon debt if Amazonian forest biomass is cleared and carbon released to
the atmosphere as a consequence of expanding biofuel
production (Ragauskas et al. 2006; Fargione et al. 2008;
Lapola et al. 2010). Resulting greenhouse gas benefits
might then be offset to the future, and with environmental costs (Fargione et al. 2008; Gibbs et al. 2008).
An important question follows: How much carbon is at
stake? Or, in landscape terms, how much forest?

Landscape Cascades
This article addresses the latter question while recognizing that carbon from vegetative biomass is related
to forest extent, both above and below ground. Geography provides a convenient heuristic to address the forest
extent question, the theory of rent, which posits that
agriculture and ranching occur when rents are positive
and that rents are determined by transportation costs
and market conditions. Thus, agricultural landscapes
organize spatially, with implications for the forested
landscapes with which they form frontiers. The rational
decision making of unitary agents implied by rent theory
is highly conditioned by social processes, institutions,
and history. For the Amazonian case, a great deal of
research has called attention to the political economy
of land use, as well as the impacts of place, household
structure, and social movements on land managers (e.g.,
Moran 1981; Hecht 1985; McCracken et al. 1999; Simmons et al. 2007; Pacheco 2009). That said, rent theory
enables the generalized description of landscape patterns at regional scale and is therefore useful to the
purposes of the article (cf. Cronon 1991). Recently,
it has been embedded in political economy to explain
the advance of ranching into Amazonia, and how this
is linked to soy production (Walker, Browder, et al.
2009).
Rents and Landscape Displacement
The rent theory adaptation focuses on ranching and
mechanized agriculture, with ranching the extensive
land use, and mechanized agriculture, the intensive one.
Ranching forms a frontier with primary forest, beyond
which rents vanish, although mineral extraction and
predatory logging often occur. Behind ranching relative to the economic strongholds of Brazil to the south
comes mechanized farming (Jepson, Brannstrom, and
Filippi 2010). Deforestation takes place as land use, typically for pastures, encroaches on forest, although direct

conversion to soy fields does occur (Brown et al. 2005;

Morton et al. 2006). The conceptual task is to identify
the land use change mechanisms that underlie the infringement of forested landscapes. With one commodity
(e.g., beef), forests become pastures when rents increase
for ranching due to rising meat prices, decreasing transportation costs, or both. With two commodities, the
situation grows more complex. If only beef prices rise,
the situation is as just stated, with an advancing cattle frontier. If only the crop price rises, it advances on
pasture until only forest remains, after which direct encroachments take place.
A complication of interest to the analysis that follows
involves strong market conditions for both crops and
cattle, in which case crop expansion consumes pastures,
which do not disappear but are instead displaced to
the forest frontier via indirect land use change (ILUC;
Walker, Browder, et al. 2009; Lapola et al. 2010). ILUC
has emerged as a key consideration in assessing biofuel
expansion in Brazil, with soy playing a key role given
its use as a biofuel feedstock, and given the dramatic
buildup of soy fields at the expense of Amazonian pastures, particularly in Mato Grosso (IBGE 2008; Sawyer
2008). For these reasons, the discussion now focuses
on soy. Direct encroachments of Amazonian forests by
soy agriculture have been observed in Mato Grosso and
Rondonia, but its primary impact on forested landscapes
could be due to ILUC (Brown et al. 2005; Morton et al.
2006; Lapola et al. 2010).
ILUC and Amazonia
Although anticipated by the dynamic landscape articulation of rent theory and widely hypothesized, the
magnitude of ILUC remains an empirical question.
The analysis now embeds this question within a context of globalization, assessing two cases bracketing
the range of beef price impacts associated with pastures converting to soy fields. For the first case, let
Amazonia supply only a small market share, in which
case its regional output has no effect on price (elastic demand). If soy fields are placed in old pastures,
prices for beef stay the same and the extensive margin
remains in place without deforestation. Alternatively,
if Amazonian supplies are globally significant (inelastic demand), pasture conversion to soy production reduces beef supplies, which raises beef prices and rents,
stimulating ILUC on the forest frontier. Table 1 formalizes these statements with results from a technical
appendix available from the author. Table 1 presents
terms showing loss of forest due to expansions of the

The Impact of Brazilian Biofuel Production on Amazonia

Table 1. Indirect land use change and forest frontier
Perfectly elastic
d te
=0
d pm

Elastic

Qb
pb

Table 2. Projected deforestation increment, by 2020 with

biofuel expansion

Perfectly inelastic


d te
=

d pm

933

1
fb

d te
1
=
d pm
fb

Note: Derivative, or incremental change in margin (d te ) with respect to

incremental change in price (d p m )
fb ( fm q m fb q b )
=
fm q m q b
fb

fm
p m= price of mechanized crop; p b= price of beef; te = extensive margin, or
forest frontier; f m = unit transportation cost of mechanized crop; f b = unit
transportation cost of beef; q b = productivity, ranching; Qb = demand for
beef; = price elasticity of beef demand.

extensive margin (or forest frontier), te , as a function

of changes in mechanized crop price, p m (e.g., soy).
Demand elasticity refers to the beef market and ranges
from perfectly elastic on the left to perfectly inelastic
on the right. As for actual market conditions, Brazil
is the worlds largest exporter of beef and possesses
the worlds largest commercial herd, with 18 percent
of global stocks, over a third of them on Amazonian
pastures (Herlihy 2008). These market conditions are
consistent with some degree of ILUC. Quite apart from
the indirect effects of biofuel expansion, Amazonian
ranching will expand of its own accord, with growing demands for beef worldwide and widespread land
constraints.
Figure 1 depicts Brazils landscape cascade of recent
years. Although the discussion has focused on soy and
cattle given their preponderance in AML, Brazils biofuel issue involves other parts of the country, and a
second crop, sugarcane. As shown, cattle herds have
migrated north between 1980 and 2006, a reallocation
more dramatic over longer periods, given that Brazilian
production was initially localized in Sao Paulo State.
Movement into AML is consistent with ILUC, as can
be seen in the middle panel, where soy also jumps
north. Sugarcane shows landscape dynamics likely to
account for displacements of soy, with diffusion away
from historic coastal locations in the northeast, although Sao Paulo presently maintains extreme concentration. That said, expanding sugarcane must go
somewhere, and indications are north (Lapola et al.
2010).
The Demand for Land
Table 2 gives two recent projections of Amazonian
forest loss out to 2020, as a result of expanding land-

Expanding land
use (km2 )

Lapola et al.
(2010)a

Walker, DeFries,
et al. (2009)b

Soy + Sugarcane
Pasture
Total

86,117
371,294
457,411

121,332
314,400
435,732

a Lapola

et al. (2010) projection period, 20032020; normalized to 2008

2020.
b Walker, DeFries, et al. (2009) projection period, 20052020; normalized
to 20082020. Sugarcane (Uniao de Industria de Cana-de-Acucar 2010)
adds 60,000 km2 to projections originally based on soy and pasture.

scapes of renewable energy (sugarcane, soy fields) and

beef production that, when added together assuming
ILUC, yield total deforestation (Lapola et al. 2010).
The projections do not consider the land sparing effects
of agricultural intensification; further, their magnitudes
imply annual rates of forest loss in excess of the historic record, even though deforestation has diminished
recently, probably due to some combination of global
recession and new resolve in Brazils enforcement of
environmental law (Alves 2002; Nepstad et al. 2009).
Such numbers nevertheless provide a benchmark for
assessing the adequacy of Brazilian policies directed at
the conservation of forested landscapes, the next topic
to be addressed.

The Green Redoubt

Efforts to protect Amazonia primarily involve setting
aside lands under federal and state control and restrictions on private holdings. Public lands dedicated to
this purpose are referred to as protected areas (PAs) and
comprise a large fraction of Amazonia. Alternatively,
restrictions on land managers involve the creation of
forest reserves on individual holdings, bans on the destruction or exploitation of particular tree species such
as Brazil nut and mahogany, specifications of source areas for tropical hardwoods, and regulation of the use of
fire. The article considers the two most important relative to landscape dimension, the PA program and laws
defining forest reserve, derivative of the forest code.
Once it evaluates the forest expanses they are intended
to sustain, the article reconsiders the land needed to satisfy the global economys growing hunger for Brazilian
biofuel and beef.

934

Walker

Figure 1. Spatial dynamics of Brazilian

agriculture.

Protected Areas and the Forest Code

Although Brazils environmental legislation dates to
the 1930s (Machado 1995), the creation of conservation areas in Amazonia follows democratic reform in
the 1980s (Simmons 2002). By 2000, about 10 percent
of AML was declared for conservation under the Brazilian National System of Nature Conservation Units
(SNUC; Law 9985 18 July 2000; Decree No. 4340,
22 August 2002). Since then, areas protected by fed-

eral and state governments have grown to more than

1.25 million km2 , about a quarter of AML. Critical to
the system of PAs are Amazonias indigenous reserves,
guaranteed by Brazils 1988 Constitution. Convention
169 of the International Labor Organization recognizes
indigenous rights to natural resource use, although an
expectation of environmental stewardship can be found
in Agenda 21 from the Rio Summit. Despite pressures
on PAs throughout AML, indigenous peoples often defend their lands, even near settlement frontiers (Euler

The Impact of Brazilian Biofuel Production on Amazonia

et al. 2008). Many reserves (375) have been declared
in recent years, and now about a fifth of AML is under indigenous control, spread over 1.06 million km2 .
The PA system with indigenous land accounts for 43
percent of the forested part of AML (2.3 million km2 ),
with 37 percent permitting minimal to no disturbance
(Walker, Moore et al. 2009). These federal, state, and
indigenous lands contribute to the maintenance of the
Amazonian forest. Nevertheless, a significant portion
remains in private hands. Brazil has attempted to limit
deforestation here as well via its Forest Code, which
has long defined amounts of legally clearable land, set
at 50 percent in AML in 1965. This was changed to 80
percent in 2001 by administrative decree (MP 2166
67). Outside AML, the forest code mandates only 20
percent, even in the Atlantic rainforests of the coastal
states.
Adequate Supply?
AML originally possessed 4,196,943 km2 of forest;
thus, with 17.5 percent gone as of 2008 (734,465 km2 )
and 37 percent protected (1,281,116 km2 ; Walker,
Moore, et al. 2009), 2,181,362 km2 remains available
for occupation. The forest code requirement that 80
percent be maintained on private holdings evidently
allows 432,272 km2 for agricultural use. This number is
less than both demand projections for 2020 (Table 2).
Brazils expanding landscapes of renewable energy, in
concert with a growing cattle herd, could require land
in excess of what conservation policy has provided, in
little over a decade. Although the pace of deforestation
has recently dropped, demands for Brazilian agricultural commodities will put pressure on Amazonia as the
world economy regains its vigor. This will be a critical
moment, as it remains to be seen if Brazil will defend its
PAs and forest reserves, forcing farmers and ranchers to
intensify production, sparing land in a manner consistent with the Borlaug hypothesis (Borlaug 2007; Rudel
et al. 2009). Brazil has long enjoyed income levels high
enough to reduce rates of land clearance, and possibly
spark an Amazonian forest transition (Perz and Skole
2003; Walker 2004). Thus, the next decade looms as a
moment of reckoning for Amazonia, given the globalization of Brazilian agriculture and the intensification
of Brazilian efforts to conserve its Amazonian heritage.

935

the PAs and forest reserves. A more insidious one involves transforming Amazonias ontological status in
the interest liberating land for agriculture (Almeida
2009). To this end, agribusiness and friendly politicians have launched a discursive campaign to impose a
strong definition of Amazonia, equating it to the closed
moist forest of the region, the Amazonian Biome (AB).
AB was created by IBGE and the Ministry of the Environment with the production and distribution of maps
showing Amazonia defined on ecological grounds that
disregard the hydrologic basin concept, which has long
prevailed (Figure 2; IBGE 2006). This new Amazonia
has energized politicians from Mato Grosso, Tocantins,
and Maranhao, who argue that because their states possess little AB, their citizens should not be held accountable to the restrictions of the forest code as it applies to
AML. Those remaining inside AML boundaries, however defined, might soon benefit from a Brazilian congressional commission, which developed legislation in
2010 weakening the code with respect to the definition
of forest reserve (E. Arima, Assistant Professor, Hobart
and William Smith Colleges, electronic communication, August 2010).
Complementing discursive erasure are efforts to
weaken the PA system, to facilitate land transactions
by redefining property rights, and to sanction the occupation of terras devolutas, public lands in juridical
limbo that have not been declared for specific uses or
for alienation into private holdings (Brito and Barreto
2009). As for PAs, a movement is afoot in the Brazilian
senate to allow indigenous peoples leeway in exploiting their mineral resources; this could function as a
Trojan horse for follow-on agriculture (Almeida 2009).
Indigenous reserves cover about 20 percent of AML
and could greatly augment Brazilian land supply. Outside indigenous areas, Amazonian lands have recently
been marketized by the transformation of aforamento
leases into transactable titles and by the legal recognition of hundreds of thousands of private holdings on
terras devolutas, ranging up to 1,500 ha in size (State
of Para 2009; Brito and Barreto 2009). This later maneuver provides incentives to occupy remaining terras
devolutas, which might otherwise be declared for environmental protection, or turned over to indigenous
claimants.

Amazonia Under Erasure

A Landscape of Salvation or Ruin?

The environmentalist response to landscape cascades

into Amazonia is obvious: Defend the green redoubt of

The world must end its dependency on nonrenewable energy, and biofuel presents a viable alternative.

936

Walker

Figure 2. Defining Amazonia.

But at what cost? Although this article does not address

food security, it calls attention to an environmental
impact of considerable magnitude, Amazonian forest
loss. To the extent the world relies on Brazil for new
sources of energy, it does so at the possible expense of
Amazonias primary forest, or at least large parts of it.
If agriculture and ranching significantly advance here,
partly from biofuel-driven ILUC, greenhouse gases will
reach an atmospheric equilibrium but only in the long
run, after deforestation releases an initially large flux
of carbon. At the same time, Amazonias irreplaceable
stocks of biodiversity will go up in smoke. Brazil has
taken decisive steps to avoid this outcome by setting
aside protected areas and also by announcing a deforestation reduction target in 2008 (Nepstad et al. 2009).
The test will come in the near future, however, as the
world economy recovers its appetite for Brazilian agricultural commodities.

One cause for concern is Amazonias discursive

dismemberment. If we no longer have an Amazonia
of the mind, a distinct place requiring distinct protections, it becomes that much more difficult to provide
them. Of course, Amazonia is a sum of vastly different
parts, ecologically, culturally, and historically. But its
imaginary has held in the face of change, until now.
The United States also possessed a forest of continental
scope, forming a closed canopy from Atlantic tidewater
to the Mississippi. This forest sustained its indigenous
inhabitants and provided habitat for the Carolina
parakeet and Eastern wood bison, both extinct now
(Mershon 1907; Rostlund 1960; Sauer 1971). How
do we think of this wonder that has vanished, this
silence that condemns us? In the same way we might
soon think of Amazonia, as a forest and a way of life
erased, a ghost of development history. The Brazilian
landscape of renewable energy will prove crucial to

The Impact of Brazilian Biofuel Production on Amazonia

sustainability transition at global scale, but it also holds
a seed of potential ruin. The pathway back from one
environmental doom must not help us down another,
to the degradation of a forested landscape unique in
the world for its ecological and cultural riches.

Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge support from the National Science Foundation (NSF-BCS-0620384, Globalization, Deforestation, and the Livestock Sector in the
Brazilian Amazon; NSF-BCS-0822597, Territorializing
Exploitation Space and the Fragmentation of the Amazon Forest). I would like to thank Peter Richards for his
many insightful comments on an earlier draft. I would
also like to thank Bruce Pigozzi for refreshing my memory about concepts from transportation geography that
lie behind the details of Table 1. Karl Zimmerer and
anonymous reviewers considerably improved the article. Ritaumaria Pereira provided excellent help with
the graphics. The views expressed are mine alone and
do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science
Foundation.

References
Almeida, A. W. B. 2009. Agroestrategias e desterritorializacao: Os direitos territoriais e etnicos na mira dos estrategistas
dos agronegocios [Agrostrategies and deterritorialization:
Territorial rights and ethnicities in the gunsights of
agribusiness]. In O plano IIRSA: Na visao da sociedade
civil Pan-Amazonica, ed. A. W. B. Almeida and G. Carvalho, 57105. Belem, Brazil: Actionaid.
Alves, D. 2002. Space-time dynamics of the deforestation
in Brazilian Amazonia, International Journal of Remote
Sensing 23 (14): 290308.
Amaral, D. F. 2010. Biodiesel no Brasil: Conjuntura atual e
perspectivas [Biodiesel in Brazil: The current situation
and perspectives]. Seminar presented at the symposium
on the national biodiesel production program. Piracicapa, ESALQ, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil.
ANFAVEA. 2010. Associaca o Nacional dos Fabricantes de
Veculos Automotores [National Association of Automobile Manufacturers]. http://www.anfavea.com.br/
tabelas/autoveiculos/tabela10 producao.pdf (last accessed 5 January 2011).
Arima, E. Y., P. Barreto, and M. Brito. 2005. Pecuraria na
Amazonia: Tendencias e implicaco es para a conservaca o
[Ranching in Amazonia: Tendencies and implications for conservation]. IMAZON Technical Report
75,IMAZON, Belem, Brazil.
Borlaug, N. 2007. Feeding a hungry world. Science 318:359.
Brandao, A., G. Rezende, and R. Marquest. 2005. Crescimento Agrcola no Brasil no Perodo 19992004: Explosao da Soja e da Pecuaria Bovina e seu Impacto sobre o
Meio Ambiente [Agricultural growth in Brazil between
1999 and 2004: The explosion of soy and beef and its environmental impact]. Working Paper 1103, IPEA, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.

937

Brito, B., and P. Barreto. 2009. Os perigos da privatizaca o

generosa de terras na Amazonia: Analise sobre o Relatorio da Medida Provisoria no 458/2009 [The dangers
of generous privatization of Amazonian land: Analysis
of MP 458/2009]. Technical Note, IMAZON, Belem,
Brazil.
Brown, J. C., M. Koeppe, B. Coles, and K. Price. 2005. Soybean production and conversion of tropical forest in the
Brazilian Amazon in the case of Vilhena, Rondonia. Ambio 34 (6): 46269.
Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. 2008. Perfil do Setor

do Acu car e do Alcool

no Brasil [Profile of the sugar and
alcohol sector of Brazil]. Brasilia, Brazil: Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento.
Cronon, W. 1991. Natures metropolis: Chicago and the Great
West. New York: Norton.
Euler, A., B. Millikan, E. B. Brito, I. B. Cardozo, J. P. Leroy,
L. Caminha, M. I. Hargreaves, et al. 2008. The end of the
forest? The devastation of conservation units and indigenous
lands in the state of Rondonia. Porto Velho, Brazil: Grupo
de Trabalho Amazonica.
Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and P. Hawthorne.
2008. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science
319:123538.
Gibbs, H. K., M. Johnston, J. Foley, T. Holloway, C.
Monfreda, N. Ramankutty, and D. Zaks. 2008. Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion
in the tropics: The effects of changing yield and
technology. Environmental Research Letters 3:034001
(10 pp.).
Gurgel, A., J. M. Reilly, and S. Paltsev. 2007. Potential land use implications of a global biofuels industry.
Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization
5(2). http://www.bepress.com/jafio/v015/iss2/art9 (last
accessed 6 April 2011).
Hecht, S. B. 1985. Environment, development and politics: Capital accumulation and the livestock sector
in eastern Amazonia. World Development 13:663
84.
Herlihy, J. 2008. USMEF beef export forecast. Angus Beef
Bulletin March:7475.
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatstica (IBGE).
2006. IBGE lanca o Mapa de Biomas do Brasil e
o Mapa de Vegetaca o do Brasil, em comemoraca o
ao Dia Mundial da Biodiversidade [IBGE launches
biome and vegetation maps in commemoration of
the Day of Biodiversity]. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE.
http: // www . ibge . gov . br / home / presidencia / noticias /
noticia visualiza.php?id noticia=169 (last accessed 2
February 2010).
. 2008. Produca o da Pecuaria Municipal 2007 [Production of municipal cattle ranching 2007]. http://
www . ibge. gov. br / home/ presidencia/ noticias / noticia
impressao.php?id noticia=1269 (last accessed 23
February 2010).
. 2010. 2010 Censo Agropecuario; Produca o Agrcola
Municipal; Pesquisa Pecuaria Municipal [2010 agricultural census: Municipal agricultural production; municipal cattle report]. http://www.sidra.ibge.
gov.br/bda/tabela/listabl.asp?c=1731&z=p&o=2&i=P,
http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/bda/tabela/listabl.asp?z=t
&o=11&i=P&c=1612, http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br/
bda/tabela/listabl.asp?z=t&o=23&i=P&c=73
(last
accessed 16 February 2010).

938

Walker

International Energy Agency. 2004. Biofuels for transport:

An international perspective. Paris: International Energy
Agency.
. 2006. World energy outlook 2006. Paris: International
Energy Agency.
James, L., S. Swinton, and K. Thelen. 2010. Profitability
analysis of cellulosic energy crops compared with corn.
Agronomy Journal 102:67587.
Jepson, W., C. Brannstrom, and A. Filippi. 2010. Access
regimes and regional land change in the Brazilian cerrado, 19722002. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 100 (1): 87111.
Lapola, D. M., R. Schaldach, J. Alcamo, A. Bondeau, J. Koch,
C. Koelking, and J. A. Priess. 2010. Indirect land-use
changes can overcome carbon savings from biofuels in
Brazil, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
107 (8): 338893.
Low, S. A., and A. Isserman. 2009. A. M. ethanol and the
local economy. Economic Development Quarterly 23 (1):
7188.
Machado, P. A. L. 1995. Brazilian environmental law. 5th ed.
Sao Paulo, Brazil: Malheiros Editores Ltda.
McCracken, S. D., E. S. Brondizio, D. Nelson, E. F. Moran,
A. D. Siqueira, and C. Rodrigues-Pedraza. 1999. Remote
sensing and GIS at farm property level: Demography and
deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing 65:131120.
Mershon, W. B. 1907. The passenger pigeon. New York: The
Outing Publishing Company.
Moran, E. 1981. Developing the Amazon. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Morton, D., D. DeFries, Y. Shimabukuro, L. Anderson, E.
Arai, F. Espirito-Santo, R. Freitas, and J. Morisette.
2006. Cropland expansion changes deforestation dynamics in the southern Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 103 (39): 14637
41.
Naylor, R., A. J. Liska, M. P. Burke, W. P. Falcon, J. C.
Gaskell, S. D. Rozelle, and K. G. Cassman. 2007. The
ripple effect: Biofuels, food security, and the environment. Environment 49 (9): 3143.
Nepstad, D., B. S. Soares-Filho, F. Merry, A. Lima, P.
Moutinho, J. Carter, M. Bowman, et al. 2009. The
end of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science
326:135051.
Odum, H. T. 1971. Environment, power, and society. New
York: Wiley-Interscience.
Pacheco, P. 2009. Agrarian reform in the Brazilian Amazon: Implications for land distribution and deforestation.
World Development 37 (8): 133747.
Perz, S. G., and D. L. Skole. 2003. Secondary forest expansion
in the Brazilian Amazon and the refinement of forest
transition theory. Society and Natural Resources 16 (4):
27794.
Pingali, P., T. Raney, and K. Wiebe. 2008. Biofuels and food
security: Missing the point. Review of Agricultural Economics 30 (3): 50616.

Ragauskas, A. J., C. K. Williams, B. H. Davison, G.

Britovsek, J. Cairney, C. A. Eckert, W. J. Fredrick Jr.,
et al. 2006. The path forward for biofuels and materials.
Science 311:48489.
Rostlund, E. 1960. The geographic range of the historic bison
in the Southeast. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 50 (4): 395407.
Rudel, T. K, L. Schneider, M. Uriarte, B. L. Turner II, R.
DeFries, D. Lawrence, J. Geoghegan, et al. 2009. Agricultural intensification and changes in cultivated areas,
19702005. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (49): 2067580.
Sauer, C. O. 1971. Sixteenth century North America: The land
and the people as seen by the Europeans. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sawyer, D. 2008. Climate change, biofuels and eco-social
impacts in the Brazilian Amazon and cerrado. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363:1747
52.
Simmons, C. S. 2002. Development spaces: The local articulation of conflicting development, Amerindian rights,
and environmental policy in Eastern Amazonia. The Professional Geographer 54 (2): 24158.
Simmons, C. S., R. Walker, E. Arima, S. Aldrich, and M.
Caldas. 2007. The Amazon land war in the south of
Para. Annals of the Association of American Geographers
97 (3): 56792.
State of Para. 2009. Decreto No. 1.805, de 21 de Julho de
2009 [Decree No. 1,805 of 21 July 2009]. Governo do
Estado do Para. Belem, Brazil: Para State Government.
Uniao de Industria de Cana-de-Acucar. 2010. FAQ.
http://english.unica.com.br/FAQ/ (last accessed 16
February 2010).
Walker, R. 2004. Theorizing land cover and land use change:
The case of tropical deforestation. International Regional
Science Review 27 (3): 24770.
Walker, R., J. Browder, E. Arima, C. Simmons, R. Pereira,
M. Caldas, R. Shirota, and S. Zen. 2009. Ranching and
the new global range: Amazonia in the 21st century.
Geoforum 40 (5): 73245.
Walker, R., R. DeFries, M. de Carmen Vera-Diaz, Y.
Shimabukuro, and A. Venturieri. 2009. The expansion of intensive agriculture and ranching in
Brazilian Amazonia. In Amazonia and global change,
ed. M. Keller, M. Bustamante, J. Gash, and P.
Dias, 6181. Washington, DC: American Geophysical
Union.
Walker, R., N. Moore, E. Arima, S. Perz, C. Simmons, M.
Caldas, D. Vergara, and C. Bohrer. 2009. Protecting
Amazonia with protected areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (26): 1058286.
Wilkinson, J., and S. Herrera. 2010. Biofuels in Brazil: Debates and impacts. Journal of Peasant Studies 37 (4): 749
68.
Zimmerer, K. S. 2011. New geographies of energy: Introduction to the special issue. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 101 (4): 70511.

Correspondence: Department of Geography, Michigan State University, 314 Natural Science Bldg., East Lansing, MI 48824, e-mail:
rwalker@msu.edu.

Copyright of Annals of the Association of American Geographers is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.