Climate change and monoculture farming reduce açaí production

One of the world’s leading experts on the fruit, Hervé Rogez, a professor at the Federal University of Pará, warns about the social, environmental, and economic impacts of “açaízation” in the Amazon.

By Elton Alisson, from Belém  |  Agência FAPESP – The current açaí (Euterpe oleracea) harvest has fallen by 30% to 40%, and the price of a basket (paneiro) of the fruit has jumped from BRL 50 last year to BRL 80 this year. This occurred despite a decline in demand due to a surcharge on exports to the United States, the main importer of the product.

This was due to a combination of last year’s drought in the Amazon and a phenomenon called “açaízation,” which is characterized by replacing sustainable planting of various fruit species with açaí monoculture.

Hervé Rogez, a professor at the Federal University of Pará (UFPA) in Brazil and one of the world’s leading experts on açaí, who has contributed greatly to the commercial success of the fruit by uncovering its nutritional and biochemical properties, warns that this phenomenon has caused social, environmental, and economic impacts in the Amazon. It has also contributed to exacerbating the impacts of climate change on the productivity of the fruit.

On November 14, during the World Climate Summit in Belém, the capital of the state of Pará, the Belgian researcher participated in a panel discussion on socio-bioeconomics in the Amazon. Afterwards, he gave an interview to Agência FAPESP. The summit took place in parallel with the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30).

Rogez is part of a project called “Inov’Açaí,” which is supported by FAPESP under the Amazon+10 Initiative. The project aims to work with riverside communities to develop knowledge, innovations, and policies that ensure the sustainability of community production in the Amazon bioeconomy.

Agência FAPESP – You have drawn attention to the harmful phenomenon of “açaízation,” which impedes the sustainable development of the açaí production chain in the Amazon. When did this process begin, and what have been its direct consequences?
Hervé Rogez – The açaí chain is traditional in the Amazon, but it’s evolved significantly in terms of commercialization and market share since we discovered its nutritional value. Around 1997, the fruit became known in cities such as São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and other capitals in Brazil and around the world. In the beginning, the commercial growth of açaí was very aggressive, at 70% per year, then 30%, and it’s been slowing down, but it remains a very important market. Today, the açaí production chain generates BRL 1.5 billion per year, with one-third of that coming from the domestic market. In this context, it’s clear that there was an increase in price because demand grew much faster than supply. The consequence of this, in environmental terms, was that many farmers tended to do what we call “açaízation,” which is the process of transforming sustainable planting of various species, of multicultures, into almost monoculture of açaí. And açaí, first and foremost, is a popular, regional food essential to the food security of riverside communities. As soon as the fruit became very expensive, we began to see the emergence of a paradigm where farmers used the money obtained from selling the fruit to buy canned goods, typically canned meat, or industrialized products. This has caused problems of child malnutrition, which is something we didn’t have before.

Agência FAPESP – Why has açaí production fallen with “açaízation”?
Rogez – The impacts of this phenomenon are manifold. The most important, and one that farmers don’t realize, is that by doing this, productivity per açaí tree, per açaí palm, falls. And it falls simply because açaí, like many plants, needs bees, and the pollinators, which are mainly stingless bees, aren’t adapted to having access to food for two to three months a year and going hungry the rest of the year. They aren’t like Apis, African bees, which store food. The bees of the Amazon evolved in an environment where there’s always been biodiversity. If there’s no longer any, they’ll die and açaí productivity will drop significantly afterwards. We’ve found that açaí productivity falls by more than half. It’s very significant. When we replace the açaí with other plant species and reintroduce pollination, productivity is restored. Another impact is the worsening of income distribution, because producers’ profits are high during the fruit harvest, which lasts three months. During this period of opulence, when they earn a lot of money because the fruit is very expensive, families live well and buy non-essential consumer goods. But a few months later, they become dependent on fishing insurance and social assistance programs because they no longer have money. So this problem of lack of supplementary income for the rest of the year is important for these families. When they had other options for agroecological products, with greater biodiversity, even though selling murumuru [Astrocaryum murumuru] didn’t bring in as much money, it guaranteed extra income. Selling shrimp between April and May was also great because the açaí harvest comes right after, between July and October, depending on the location. And then there were the tucumã [Astrocaryum vulgare] and miriti [Mauritia flexuosa] harvests, meaning there was a rotation of crops annually. This lack of other crops, due to “açaízation,” becomes visible. It’s sad to see families reselling their belongings, such as boat engines, which they bought a few months ago and are brand new, because they have to pay for medicine or have had some unforeseen event, a health problem, and then they have to get rid of their things because they have no money.

Agência FAPESP – What about the environmental impacts?
Rogez – “Açaízation” causes, for example, accelerated soil erosion. In a monoculture system, erosion is much faster than when intercropping because other species retain clay much better in their roots than monocotyledons [a group of flowering plants (angiosperms) that are distinguished mainly by having only one embryonic leaf, the cotyledon], such as palm trees, which aren’t as efficient at this. The açaí palm retains it, but poorly. That’s why many riverside dwellers are experiencing erosion problems on their plots and complain that it’s never been so severe. The older ones say they’ve never seen this phenomenon before. The rise in sea levels here in the estuary, even if it’s only 40 centimeters, when there’s a high tide, it leaches much more, carrying much more clay than normal into the ocean, and then erosion accelerates. Also, it’s now more common for boats used in the Amazon to be powered by engines. Thirty years ago, there were still many rowing boats, but today it’s difficult to see one. This also contributes to increased erosion. And then, with “açaízation,” the ecosystem is no longer prepared. “Açaízation” also reduces the availability of food for shrimp. Today, fishermen complain that the shrimp are too small, that there are no more large shrimp, but in order to fatten up and grow, shrimp need good nutrition. This good nutrition came from the fruits of the ecosystem, which weren’t preserved. So, shrimp have less food available. This also has an impact on health. There are more cases of Chagas disease today, which have been increasing since the first diagnosis of the presence of the disease-transmitting bug in açaí in 2006. The number of cases has increased since then. A decade ago, we had about 150 cases per year. Now we’re seeing more than 250 cases per year. It’s been increasing little by little. And we haven’t yet reached the saturation point of “açaízation.” Fortunately, most of the population has realized this and has returned to planting other species. I know of communities that are already diversifying their crops in several municipalities. We’re also working in this direction, but we haven’t yet reached a balance. There’s still pressure regarding kissing bugs, which enter the açaí production chain and transmit the disease.

Agência FAPESP – In this sense, have the impacts of “açaízation” been exacerbated by climate change?
Rogez – Strongly. We’re now in the middle of the harvest season and the value of a basket of açaí, rounded up, is between BRL 70 and BRL 80. Last year it was BRL 50 and, in previous years, around BRL 35, BRL 40. And demand hasn’t increased. In fact, it’s shrunk because even the United States, for example, is hardly importing anymore. The truth is that production has fallen sharply and the palm trees – not just the açaí – are suffering the effects of a drought in the year following the phenomenon. Last year, for example, the rains returned in November after three months of drought. It was something I’d never seen before. For three months, there was blazing sunshine and blue skies, and I watched the açaí palm trees struggling not to dry out, not to sacrifice last year’s fruit. Like other palm trees, the açaí trees sacrificed the embryo of the new bunch that would be born this year. Inside the crown, as we call it, at the top of the palm tree where the palm heart is, there’s the embryo of what will bloom in February or March of the following year. The bunch will be born, have flowers, and then fruits. This small bunch is sacrificed during the drought because the tree had no water and needed to nourish last year’s fruits. Therefore, it decided to prioritize those that were already grown and sacrificed those of the following year, as other palm trees do. As a result, this year we had a significant drop in production, between 30% and 40%, which is a lot in market terms, and the price increased. The result of this was also that the price of açaí juice became very high for riverside populations, for vulnerable populations, who started making açaí water when they pulp the fruit. They dilute it a lot because it’s so expensive that they can’t drink a thicker açaí. And in the water, of course, everything is diluted, such as proteins, fibers, oil, and nutritional value. It’s an aberration in terms of food security to reach such paradoxes. But clearly, this is due to climate change. It was a boomerang effect of last year’s drought.

Agência FAPESP – So, has “açaízation” incorporated the production model and is repeating the same mistakes as agribusiness?
Rogez – There are a number of examples of this in agribusiness. There are many monocultures that destroy the ecosystem, and then there are no more birds, no more biodiversity. Agriculture, in the Western model, follows this logic very closely. Traditional populations, on the other hand, never practiced monoculture. They always practiced sustainable farming. They started to apply to açaí what agriculture was doing, with the boomerang effect we’ve seen that’s multiple. There have been several boomerang effects. Producers pay the price for this through Chagas disease, erosion of their land, and lack of income distribution. This is really a high price to pay for the success of açaí. And so we work to raise their awareness. I know both individual farmers and communities and cooperatives that are successful, that know how to manage well, have no problems with shrimp, income distribution, and are able to process. It’s always these examples that we use as a model to influence other communities and raise awareness and reverse this process, because it is reversible. Where baboonwood ([Virola surinamensis], andirobas [Carapa guianensis], and tucumã are replanted, there’s already a significant positive response in three years. Pollinators, for example, return, and then productivity quickly improves, and the açaí farmers are beginning to understand that. In fact, it’s much better than it was before in terms of production. And agriculture doesn’t think that way. Since they plant corn, sugarcane, and other crops that don’t need bees, they don’t care. For fruit growing, however, bees are essential. So, this Western model of agriculture can’t be copied and pasted because it doesn’t work. We need to copy and paste the model of traditional peoples, not the imported model, which isn’t right.

Agência FAPESP – What are the objectives of the project you are conducting under the Amazon+10 Initiative to address this process of açaízation and seek solutions for these communities to adapt their production systems to climate change?
Rogez – The first objective is to ascertain the populations’ perception and knowledge of existing public policies on the pricing of açaí, because many sell it cheaply and pass it on to middlemen – typically boatmen – who greatly increase the value of the product before it reaches the cities, at a much higher price. So, the idea is to assess their level of access to this information and to programs such as the PNAE [National School Feeding Program] and the PAA [Food Acquisition Program], which allow, for example, part of the açaí to be consumed in school meals – because it’s a safe food that children love and is healthy – along with farinha d’água [literally meaning “water flour”, it is made with fermented cassava], which is also local, regional, and a very healthy food. Thus, the first part of the project addresses various public policies and we also ask the populations, through a questionnaire, if they work in associations or cooperatives or if they usually work in isolation. This is important for us to know because they’ve been suffering not only from the impacts of climate change, but also from problems such as soil erosion and lack of access to drinking water when the Amazon experiences prolonged periods of drought that didn’t exist before. Therefore, it’s important to better understand how prepared the populations are to act together and build responses jointly. To that end, we’re working in the largest açaí production area, which is the area if the lower Tocantins River, on field research, and we’re also developing partial solutions to these problems.

Agência FAPESP – Can you give an example of a response that has been developed jointly through the project?
Rogez – In one aspect of the project, we’re working on developing a solution with the local population, particularly young people, who we’re teaching to use drones. We purchased three small drones to be used on an itinerant basis in the three micro-regions where the project operates, and we teach high school students how to use them to scan their own properties or those of their neighbors, upon signing a consent form. Through this solution, they can transfer the images to their cell phones and directly see the percentage of açaí palm trees in those areas in relation to other species. This allows them to quickly assess the biodiversity that still exists on their plots. For us, this is also a way to enable this tool, which young people love, to be used in favor of sustainable development. By monitoring these images from year to year, we’ll be able to teach them to recognize tree health problems caused by drought, pests, and salinization, which are already beginning to appear. This isn’t part of the current project, but our concept is to demonstrate the importance of starting to work with high school students now and having some examples so that we can eventually create a program with the State Department of Education, through a policy brief [a document proposing public solutions to decision makers].

Agência FAPESP – In addition to building joint knowledge and public policies, you also intend to develop technological innovations during the project that can be incorporated into the açaí bioeconomy chain. What solutions do you intend to create?
Rogez – We intend to develop products from the açaí pit, such as bioflocculants [materials that act by agglutinating particles to facilitate water purification and other industrial processes], activated carbon [to adsorb toxins, chemicals, and pollutants from the environment], and biogas [renewable fuel generated by the decomposition of organic matter]. The idea is that the economic return from these products to the population will pay for the investment made in purchasing some of the reagents and electricity needed to generate them. We work based on circular economy principles to develop a zero-waste operation, because we work with cooperatives and associations that already sell pulp and other waste. For us, zero waste means developing a process that has to pay for itself, that can’t operate at a loss, otherwise it won’t be sustainable. Therefore, we optimize the production process of bioflocculants, activated carbon, and biogas to have a zero-waste operation in the end. With this, farmers sell the fruit and know that the pits aren’t wasted, but that they’ll return to them bioprocessed, in the form of bioflocculant, activated carbon, and biogas. This way, they’ll be able to have quality drinking water. This project is under development. In terms of technological readiness level [TRL], we’re moving from 2 to 3, and now we intend to scale up. We’ve completed the bench-scale project, and next year we’ll move on to scaling up so that we can transfer these processes to cooperatives and associations.

Agência FAPESP – Açaí is cited as the first successful example of a bioactive product from the Amazon that has helped boost the socio-bioeconomy in the Amazon region. In this sense, can it teach us lessons about problems that should be avoided when attempting to develop other production chains in the Amazon?
Rogez – Açaí is the first, but it isn’t the only one. In addition to açaí, I also work a lot with cocoa, and we have the same experiences. They’re not present in the same micro-regions. Cocoa is produced in the Transamazonian region, in the area around the city of Altamira, in western Pará state, and in the municipalities in this region, many farmers are tending to grow cocoa as a monoculture. They claim that the land is good for cocoa and that their neighbors also grow cocoa. And so we also see several paradoxes and have been working with them to understand the importance of maintaining biodiversity. The problems aren’t the same. There, it’s more a question of witch’s broom disease and pests, because when you have biodiversity, they affect crops much less than in monoculture systems. But the mistakes are the same, and so are the solutions. In terms of bioeconomy, cocoa is the second most important chain after açaí, generating BRL 1.2 billion, and Pará is already the largest national producer. It surpassed the state of Bahia about seven years ago. And the third most important bioeconomy chain in the state is Brazil nuts, which are suffering a barbaric effect from climate change. The reduction in Brazil nut production has been more than half. When you look at the Brazil nut tree, it’s beautiful, preserved, because it can’t be cut down, but there are often fires in its vicinity and the water system hasn’t been maintained near the tree. Genetically speaking, the Brazil nut tree didn’t evolve in a pseudo-dry soil system, and with the series of droughts that occurred in the last two years, the tree has given up this year. The trees aren’t dying, but they lack foliage. The trees are really in very bad shape, and so the nuts are inevitably much less numerous, which also leads to a drop in production. This has even happened in extractive reserves, or RESEX. Indigenous peoples have also reported a drop in Brazil nut production. In other words, the lack of rain has really had an impact, especially when they’re isolated. Even in a mixed cropping system, in still preserved forests, production is also falling. So it’s a traditional production chain in the North region that extends to the state of Acre and that also leads us to the search for solutions.

Agência FAPESP – What solutions have been studied?
Rogez – For now, we’re researching everything related to natural irrigation. There are reticulated systems available today, similar to sponges, to retain moisture in the soil for longer or increase vegetation cover or reduce the incidence of sunlight on the soil, in addition to several other alternatives. I think this will become increasingly important. We really have to mitigate the effects of climate change. My main motivations are traditional peoples and my children. Just as I’m concerned about my children, I’m also concerned about the current generation of young people. They’re the ones who’ll have to deal with this on a daily basis. Just as we have to learn to eat better, we have to learn to farm better.