Abstract
Brief History of Industrialization in Brazil
Defining an industrial biotechnology policy has been one of the longstanding goals of the Bioindustry Committee of BioBrasil of the Federation of Industries of the State of São Paulo (FIESP). Below is a translated excerpt from a speech delivered in 1899 by Antônio Francisco de Paula Souza, an engineer and graduate of the first group of engineers from the Polytechnic School of São Paulo, founded in 1894
1,2
: …who show the most enviable erudition; however, it is quite rare to find someone to perform even the simplest things. Thus the mental state of our country, just for a miracle should we expect her to have an early industry and not be forced to import everything from abroad. Now of course if needed to react against this state of affairs: and this school is the material expression of this reaction. She looks towards providing a scientific education that will enable their students to refrain empirically, educating them at the same time in practice those jobs that have more commonly to perform. Its primary objective is therefore rather to create citizens who can perform and practice than discuss and argue.
What strikes the eye is the use of the word “preocupação” in the nineteenth century with regard to the formation of “technical citizens,” who are able to create and apply technology and not just “discuss and discuss.” This concern derived from Paula Souza's scientific nature and training, having been educated in Karlsruhe, Germany, and in Zurich, Switzerland, and his interest in the need for national technological development and the expansion of national communications pathways as key sectors for advancement.
Thus, approximately since the early years of the twentieth century, we could identify a movement that is concerned with the diversification of scientific areas as a target for investment, especially from the time when the new republic aimed to achieve recognition and sustainability in the global geopolitical scene. In other words, Paula Souza, in the context of his time, already pointed to the need to focus on and structure a policy for science and technology.
Unfortunately, in practice, concerns were diluted in the Old Republic (1889–1930), as they were linked to the owners of groups of land, who were conservatives, usually major landowners, located in the states of São Paulo and Minas Gerais and, therefore, extremely dependent on imported technology and products allowed for by scientific progress in foreign countries. With the end of “coffee-with-milk” politics (the term referring to the hegemonic policy of the Paulista and Mineiro Republican Party), and after the coup that made Getulio Vargas head of the provisional government of the Republic in 1930, the situation began to change significantly.
Although a good portion of rural oligarchies have found space and settled again in the rebuilt power structures, this has occurred gradually and has favored industrial and urban activities. Some cities were competing for which would be the geographic focus for development in Brazil. São Paulo was one of them. Since the late twentieth century, São Paulo had received an influx of large landowners of coffee plantations who, often through their children, applied their surplus capital toward creating an industry, albeit incipient. In this scenario, we can follow the foundation of Paulista Avenue, one of the city's symbols
3
: …Joaquim Eugenio de Lima, returned from Germany in 1880 and inspired by the great avenues of European cities, joined José Borges de Figueiredo and João Augusto Garcia to purchase various plots where only passed bullock carts. There was built a huge track 2,800 meters long and 30 wide. The appropriate part of the movement was divided in three copies, intended for riders, carriages and trolley, which soon became the main form of transportation on the avenue. The project was inaugurated on December 8, 1891, with the name of Avenida Paulista. The names of the surrounding streets were given in tribute to other cities in the state, species of urban satellites that surrounded the great Paulicéia. Hence the malls receive the names of Campinas, Tiete, Jau, Santos, Limeira etc.
Industrialization in the Twentieth Century
Even with the political disadvantage at the beginning of the systematic industrialization applied by agrarian conservative forces, the characteristic pioneering spirit of the Paulistas has carried through to the present, and the State has assumed great responsibility for the flourishing of science and technology at the national level. Despite this pioneering spirit with respect to industrialization, however, which existed mainly in the cities of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, it has only been since the 1930s that we could speak of an “industrial system” and a political debate on development policies. In discussing the process of industrial development, Bielschowsky states, “The decades of 30, 40 and 50 are the basic period of deployment of the Brazilian industrial system. At that time there was a rapid and profound division of domestic labor, through a process that introduced and spread, in a significant portion of the production system in transformation, global technical progress, until then virtually confined to foreign trade limits of the country.” 4
That is when, according to the author, a broad debate developed on the direction required for the country's industrialization process. The discussion revolved mainly around the concept of “developmentalism.” 4 The main points were the following: manufacturing to overcome poverty and underdevelopment; the need for state planning for industrialization; planning that would define the mechanisms for promoting this expansion; and the need for the State to monitor the implementation of this expansion, capturing and directing financial resources and promoting direct investment in the poorest sectors of private enterprise. 4 The debate reflected a dispute between an interventionist position with the strong participation of the State or, on the contrary, a doctrine of free trade and non-intervention that would dictate the national direction. As is known, the Vargas State, his second government, which ended in 1954 with his suicide, was largely underpinned by the authoritarian and interventionist inspiration. Important discussions on industrialization, inflation, import substitution, and investment planning marked the tone of the debates at that time.
The big question revolved around how autonomous industrial development would come about. A broad definition of those goals came in 1955 when Juscelino Kubitschek announced that his government would accomplish “fifty years in five.” The following year, in the early years of his mandate, his government's Economic Development Council formulated the Target Plan. But what we saw soon after, at the juncture between 1961 (resignation of Janio Quadros) and the military coup in 1964, was strong political instability, social mobilization for reforms, and declining economic growth rates.
In the following period, identified by the military dictatorship, one can follow the expansion of participation of multinational companies in the Brazilian market. This view of the national economy as a segment of a capitalist world economy resulted in the stagnation of the possible development of national science and technology production. As Paul Singer explains
5
: The new alliance in power certainly did not exclude the industrial bourgeoisie, but did not give it the priority to the interests they held in the previous regime. It was natural that the alternative “internationalist” passed to have more chance, especially because she had a better chance to alleviate the so-called “external strangulation.” It was already clear then that import substitution did not result in itself, a decrease in the need to import. The import substitution is never complete–materials, components and especially equipment and know-how continue to be bought abroad.
In summary, Singer divides economic history and Brazilian industry during this period as follows: 1) 1885–1930, industrialization as a secondary consequence of capitalist reorganization of coffee; 2) 1933–1955, the transition from extensive industrialization to the formation of basic industry; 3) 1956–1967, the expansion of monopoly capital (multinational and state); 4) 1968–1980, consolidation of structural transformations. 5
Positioning Brazil for the Bioeconomy
This brief Brazilian industrialization scenario provides some insights to explain the need to position Brazil for the bioeconomy. Created in 2012, BIOBRASIL has a mission to spread an agenda in favor of Brazilian competitiveness. The country is lacking sector leaders to drive investment in infrastructure and public policies that support a foundation for the development of biotechnology in productive biobased industries, from health to food. From a European, American, and Japanese perspective, experience points to the use of public-private partnerships (PPP), and this is a path that Brazil will need to follow.
BIOBRASIL is an initiative born from the partnership of companies, organizations, and professionals involved in the bioindustry and with advances in biotechnology in Brazil. The leadership of São Paulo in the Brazilian bioeconomy and the significant number of biotech companies in the region make the state a key player in sectoral discussions related to the topic. FIESP, through BIOBRASIL, contributes to the spread of an agenda in favor of Brazilian competitiveness and understands that biotechnology, as a subject on which to build for the future, is essential for an industry looking for sustainability. In this way, its performance is multidisciplinary to the sectors represented by it.
The Brazil Biotech Map, a study conducted by the Brazilian Center for Planning Analysis (CEBRAP), pointed out in 2011 the growth in the number of new companies in the last 10 years and presented the regional perspective of the geographical distribution of companies and scientific production. The preparation of sector studies in biotechnology in Brazil is recent and lacks regularity and methodological rigor. This effort is crucial for new public policies to be in tune with the business and scientific reality. The State of São Paulo represents 40% of the country's biotech companies. Business groups and companies in the pharmaceutical, agricultural, and sugar and alcohol sectors are established in the State. In addition, São Paulo has the leading educational and research institutions in the country, linked in a scientific cooperative network that extends nationally and internationally.
As the most significant contributions of the country to the advancement of biotechnology in the global context, I would cite three: biofuels, agriculture, and vaccines. In the energy sector, since Brazil launched the National Alcohol Program (PROALCOOL) in the 1970s, it has held a key position in the first-generation ethanol from sugarcane industry. Today, we are world leaders in developing new species and in production. In agriculture, the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa), established in 1973, is a world reference for research in the sector. The same is true in the vaccine industry, with old institutions like Fiocruz and Butatan Institute. Although it is internationally recognized in the use of biotechnology in agriculture (Embrapa) and energy (ethanol) as well as for its tradition in vaccine development (Fiocruz and Butantan Institute), Brazil does not have a clear positioning on the world stage.
What are the best practices in the international arena in terms of policy to support this sector that could be applied in Brazil? On the international scene, we can point to the European policies “FP7” and “Horizon 2020,” in addition to PPPs designed as a public policy for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Brazil can use the European, American, and Japanese experiences as models to drive investment in infrastructure and public policies that stimulate the development of productive biobased industries and follow the path of PPPs. This will allow Brazil to take a “bio-economic” leap favoring the preservation of its biodiversity and strengthening education in science for future generations.
One of the diagnostic factors pointing to the low level of the country's growth in 2012 was the small volume of investment. How can we attract resources for the biotechnology industry in the coming years? Defining an industrial policy has been one of the long-declared goals for the sector. As part of the important network of public investments, resources should be directed to biotech-related enterprises and research. But still stronger action by the government is needed. The legal uncertainty, as in the case of access to biodiversity, is a good example of how Brazil has been pushing the industry to invest in the sector.
The federal government announced that it will allocate resources to stimulate biotechnology. We know that research in biotechnology does not only take place in university laboratories. The main challenge will be how to provide access to these resources to small biotech companies and how to evaluate the work they are doing. The coordination of these programs is the result of a government willing to listen, but there is still much to be done. To have access to resources, companies need to be able to dive into the complex process of research and development. Increasing firms' access to these resources is a top priority. Moreover, investment in education associated with the program is an innovation in terms of policy, and we are in the early days of understanding the functioning and rules of this aspect of the program. The program operation is as important as the program itself.
Brazil is developing sufficient manpower to meet the demands of the biotech industry but there is a lack of professionals in the sector. The process initiated by the federal government's Science Without Borders program is an important step, but it is not enough. Basically, this federal program provided funding to support Brazilian students in accessing universities abroad, because our students need to participate in cutting-edge research conducted in other countries. Also, the industry lacks programs that encourage the exchange of teachers, doctors, and PhD's from institutes and companies. We need a two-way Science without Borders program that is aimed at industry. The process of internationalization is not associated only with promotion and export; that would overlook programs that enhance technology transfer and realization of patents in partnership with institutions outside of Brazil.
Brazil is valued for its biodiversity. Species of the Amazon and Cerrado attract the interest of researchers and industries around the world. In São Paulo we have examples of species used in research that have shown strong potential The law on access to biodiversity and the Nagoya protocol will be topics of discussion in the ongoing development of biotechnology industrial policies.
We have identified key elements for bioindustry development: it must be multidisciplinary; involve cross-cutting actions; and include intersectoral collaboration. If we can move forward on these points, the socioeconomic benefits will be immense. The success of the bioeconomy, an economy based on biobased products, is closely related to its resource chain and the sustainable use of resources. A good example is the transformation of sugarcane into “green” plastic (bioplastic), or renewable energy.
Our world needs gains that transcend the sense of losses and failures. The resources for interaction and learning at a global level have not been available. Advancements in science leading to an exuberant and promising bioeconomy offer us the opportunity to focus on the implementation of a sustainable developmental agenda and on positive action: something that surpasses expectations and puts in motion a cycle of collective success and high aspirations that are mutually reinforcing. Accelerating the development of a world-class innovation ecosystem in Brazil will contribute to these positive actions.