IMPACTO DA CRISE HÍDRICA NAS CADEIAS DE ALIMENTOS

Priscila L. S. MiguelRenata P. BritoSusana C. F. Pereira

Celog: Pesquisas recentes

• Gestão de Risco de Desastres Naturais no Brasil (2014)

• Risco Percebido em cadeias de suprimentos(2015)

• Impacto da Crise Hídrica (SP) nas Cadeiasde Alimentos (2016)

Objetivos da Pesquisa

• Identificar como os produtores das cadeias de alimentos perceberam osefeitos da crise hídrica e comoreagiram para mitigar esse risco

Base Teórica• Environment and businesses (Mudanças

climáticas)• Desastres e rupturas• Supply chain risk management • Percepção de risco• Adaptação

Tipos de Desastres

Fonte: Wassenhove (2006)

Natural Man-made

SúbitoTerremotos, furacão, tornados, tsunamis, inundações

Ataques terroristasGolpes terroristasVazamentos químicos

Perene Fome, Seca, Estiagem, Miséria

Crises PolíticasCrises de Refugiados

Acre (2015) Northeast (2015) São Paulo (2015)

Desastres naturais recentes no Brasil

Fases do Desastre

Fonte: Scholten et al (2014)

Mitigação Preparação

RespostaRecuperação

Framework teórico SCRM

Fonte: Juttner et al (2003)Resilience

Risco

Incerteza RiscosDamages

Benefícios

Eventos que podem ocorrer(ou no)

Gestão do Risco

Incerteza Risco Eventos prováveis

Respostas alternativas Consequências

Gestão de Riscos

Decisões

Risco e VulnerabilidadeRisk assessment � probabilidade de ocorrências vs consequências

Vulnerabilidade Moderada

VulnerabilidadeAlta

VulnerabilidadeBaixa

VulnerabiliadeMédia

Suaves Severa

Alta

Baixa

Consequências

Pro

bab

ilid

ade

de

oco

rrên

cia

Fontes de Risco na Cadeia

Supply Risks Process and Control Demand Risks

Environmental Risks

Supply Chain Risks

Firm Risks

Sources: Adapted from Mason-Jones & Towill (1998) and Jüttner et al. (2003)

Previous frameworks

Wagner e Bode (2008)

Risk sources

Demand

Supply

Regulatory, legal

and bureaucratic

Infrastructure

Catastrophic

Risk sources

Demand

Supply

Manufacturing

Logistics

Information

Environment

Punniyamorthy et al (2013)

Our frameworkafter the focus group

13 participants:

Practitioners and academicsresearchers

Risk Sources

DEMAND

SUPPLY

REGULATORY,

LEGAL AND

BUREAUCRATIC

PROCESS

INFORMATION

COMPLIANCE

LOGISTICS

CATASTROPHIC

Model Adopted

DEMAND

SUPPLY

REGULATORY, LEGAL AND

BUREAUCRATIC

PROCESS

INFORMATION

COMPLIANCE

LOGISTIC

AND SC

DISASTERS

O evento: a crise hídrica no Estado de São Paulo

2013 Governo comunicou que não havia risco de interromper o suprimento deenergia

2014 - Informações do nível de água dos reservatórios para a população- Governo de São Paulo negou que fosse uma crise severa, mas começoucampanha para redução no consume e começou a aplicar multas paraconsumidores que aumentasse o consume- Discussão de alternativas de suprimentode água para São Paulo

2015(Jan a Abril)

- Informações do nível de água dos reservatórios para a população- Impactos para população e empresas- Açoes para reduzir o impacto pelo Governo, indivíduos e Organizações

Cantareira – 2015

Escopo e Foco

• Crise hídrica no sudeste• Início 2013• Pior da história• Principais impactos começaram em 2014 (população, serviços e

indústria)• Cadeias mais afetadas: indústria automotiva, atividades comerciais,

cana-de-açúcar, carne, laranja e café

• Foco da pesquisa : cadeias de cana, café e cana-de-açúcar

• Qualitativa (entrevistas)

Justificativa

Café - Brazil exportou 33.17 milhões (Out-14 a Set-15), cerca de 30% da exortação mundial (110.74 milhões)

Suco de laranja

- Brazil alcançou alta eficiência na cadeia- Produz metade do volume de suco de laranja do mundo ($ 1.5 a $ 2.5 bilhões

ao ano)- Em quase 50 anos: $ 60 bilhões para o Brasil (preço de 2010)

Cana-de-açúcar

- Principal recurso para produção de açúcar, para produção de energia e derivados como etanol e fibras - Brasil é o maior produtor e exportador de derivados da cana-de-açúcar no mundo- São Paulo é responsável por cerca de metade da produção doméstica

Metodologia

- entrevistas (dois pesquisadores simultaneamente)

- modelos mentais e discussões após as entrevistas

- Entrevistas gravadas (mais de 13 horas), transcritas ecodificadas por um terceiro pesquisador

- Duas rodadas de discussões com todo o grupo de Pesquisapara analisar os dados

- Uso do Software N-Vivo para aprimorar a análise

Design da Pesquisa – cadeias e elos pesquisados

3PLs & Food Services

Provedores de serviços logísticos

Catering e serviçosde embalagem

Compradores e Distribuidores

Pordutores

Laranja

Café (Arabic)

Cana-de-açúcar

Processadoresde alimentos

Produtoresde Alimentos Varejo

Unidades de Análise e Amostra

Descriptives Research

Unidade de análise Produtores, cooperativas, associações e consultores

Amostra 16 entrevistas – cadeia da Laranja, café e cana-de-

açúcar

Método de coleta Entrevistas (média de 35 minutes por interview)

Estudo qualitativo: entrevistas em profundidade (16 empresas)

Supply chain ProdutorProcessador de alimentos/ Indústria

Varejista

CaféProdutor de caféConsultor (café)

Processador de café

Varejo FFSugarcane

Moinho de açúcarLiquor Scale

Liquor ILiquor II

Liquor Org

Laranja

Produtor de laranja IProdutor de laranja II

Cooperativa de laranja ICooperativa de laranja IICooperativa de laranja III

Farmers’ Association

GovernoGoverno (Técnico)

Assistência

Preliminary data analysis - Qualitative researchEmpresas/Org

anizações Cidade Commodity

1 COPERFAM/ COOPERCITRUS

Bebedouro Cana-de-açúcar/Suco de laranja

2 COFRUCAR CandidoRodrigues

Cana-de-açúcar/Suco de laranja

3 PRODUTOR Taquaritinga Orange Juice

4 GOVERNO SP S. J. Rio Preto Cana-de-açúcar/Suco de laranja

5 FÁBRICA DE AÇÚCAR E ENERGIA

Novo Horizonte

Sugar Cane

6 INDÚSTRIA DE BEBIDAS

Arealva Sugar Cane

7 PROCESSADOR DE ALIMENTOS

Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo

Cana-de-açúcar/Suco de laranja

8 INDÚSTRIA DE BEBIDAS

Serra Negra Sugar Cane

9 VAREJO São Paulo Cana-de-açúcar/Suco de laranja/Café (Arabic)

10 PROCESSADOR DE ALIMENTOS

São Paulo Café (Arabic)

11 INDUSTRIA DE BEBIDAS

Limeira Cana-de-açúcar

12 CONSULTOR (FARM)

São Joaquim da Barra

Cana-de-açúcar

13 PRODUTOR Parapuã Cana-de-açúcar

12

3

4

5

86

79

11

10

12

13

Res

ulta

dos

Empresa Experiência Prévia Percepção de Riscos Outros Riscos/preoupações Gestão de RiscoRetailer, fast-food chain

Retailer FFIndirect experience, no losses incurred

High likelihood CompetitionPlanned and implemented mitigation measures

Food manufacturer, coffee

Coffee ManufacturerIndirect experience, incurred in losses

High likelihood Competition Emergency mitigation

Sugar and liquor producers

Sugar MillDirect experience, incurred in losses

Low risk, diversification Competition and technologyNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation

Liquor ScaleDirect experience, incurred in losses

High likelihood Competition and taxes Non-prepared, diversification of supply

Liquor OrgDirect experience, incurred in losses

High likelihood Environmental awarenessNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation

Liquor IDirect experience, perceived impacts in supply chain

High likelihood Taxes and workforce Non-prepared, other concerns (taxes)

Liquor IIIndirect experience, no losses incurred

Low risk, nature provider Taxes and workforceNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation

Orange farming

Orange Farm IDirect experience, incurred in losses

Low risk, nature provider CompetitionNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation

Orange Farm IIDirect experience, incurred in losses

High likelihood Competition Non-prepared, of lack of information

Orange Coop IDirect experience, incurred in losses

Low risk, nature provider (climate change deny)

Competition, technologyNon-prepared, technological issues of mitigation

Orange Coop IIDirect experience, incurred in losses

Low risk, nature provider (climate change deny)

CompetitionNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation

Orange Coop IIIDirect experience, incurred in losses

Low risk, nature provider CompetitionNon-prepared, technological issues of mitigation

Farmers’ Association Direct experience Low risk Competition, technologyNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation

Coffee farming

Coffee FarmDirect experience, incurred in losses

Low risk, nature provider Competition and technology Non-prepared, perception of low risk

Coffee ConsultantDirect experience, incurred in losses

High likelihood Competition and technologyNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation

GovernGovernmental technical assistance

Indirect experienceLow risk, nature provider (climate change deny)

Technology, legislationNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation

Resumo dos Casos: Açúcar

FirmPrevious Experience

Risk Perception

Other Risks/Concerns

Risk management

Sugar and liquor producers

Sugar MillDirect experience, incurred in losses

Low risk, diversification

Competition and technology

Non-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation

Liquor ScaleDirect experience, incurred in losses

High likelihood Competition and taxesNon-prepared, diversification of supply

Liquor OrgDirect experience, incurred in losses

High likelihoodEnvironmental awareness

Non-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation

Liquor IDirect experience, perceived impacts in supply chain

High likelihood Taxes and workforceNon-prepared, other concerns (taxes)

Liquor IIIndirect experience, no losses incurred

Low risk, nature provider

Taxes and workforceNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation

Cases Resume: OrangeFirm

Previous Experience

Risk Perception

Other Risks/Concerns

Risk management

Orange farming

Orange Farm IDirect experience, incurred in losses

Low risk, nature provider

CompetitionNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation

Orange Farm IIDirect experience, incurred in losses

High likelihood CompetitionNon-prepared, of lack of information

Orange Coop IDirect experience, incurred in losses

Low risk, nature provider (climate change deny)

Competition, technology

Non-prepared, technological issues of mitigation

Orange Coop IIDirect experience, incurred in losses

Low risk, nature provider (climate change deny)

CompetitionNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation

Orange Coop IIIDirect experience, incurred in losses

Low risk, nature provider

CompetitionNon-prepared, technological issues of mitigation

Farmers’ Association

Direct experience Low riskCompetition, technology

Non-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation

Cases Resume: CoffeeFirm

Previous Experience

Risk Perception

Other Risks/Concerns

Risk management

Food manufacturer, coffee

Coffee Manufacturer

Indirect experience, incurred in losses

High likelihood Competition Emergency mitigation

Coffee farming

Coffee Farm

Direct experience, incurred in losses

Low risk, nature provider

Competition and technology

Non-prepared, perception of low risk

Coffee Consultant

Direct experience, incurred in losses

High likelihoodCompetition and technology

Non-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation

Cases Resume: Retailer and Government

FirmPrevious Experience

Risk Perception

Other Risks/Concerns

Risk management

Retailer, fast-food chain

Retailer FFIndirect experience, no losses incurred

High likelihood

CompetitionPlanned and implemented mitigation measures

Govern

Governmental technical assistance

Indirect experience

Low risk, nature provider (climate change deny)

Technology, legislation

Non-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation

Paradoxo da percepção de Risco??

Resultados: categorização dos casos

Consultor (café)Associação produtoresCooperativa Laranja ICooperativa Laranja IICooperativa Laranja IIIGoverno (Ass. Técnica)

Grupo de Influência

Produtor caféMoinho de açúcarEmpresa bebida IEmpresa bebida IIEmpresa bebidaProdutor Laranja IProdutor Laranja II

Vulneráveis

VarejoFabricante caféEmpresa bebida (escala)

Gestores de Risco

Discussão

Fatores de influência: percepção de risco e preparação

Influência Positiva Influência Negativa

Acesso a Informação

Experiência anterior (perdas)

Natureza provedora

Escassez Informação

Custos da Mitigação

Percepção de Risco

Preparação

Preliminary Results

- Despite the severity of water crisis in Sao Paulo State, the most affectedfood chains did not take steps for mitigation and preparedness forrecurrence

- The most severe drought in 83 years and firms seems to beaccommodate with low perception of risk (Risk Perception Paradox,

Wachinger et al., 2013)

- No support from government, leads to mistrust by the producers andprocessors, specially regard taxes, bureaucracy to regulate and controlenvironmental impacts and lack of credit for small producers and firms

Initial Conclusions

Which are drought impacts on food supply chain in Brazil? How this phenomenon is incorporated in firms´ risk management?

Severity of water crisis did not contribute to raise risk perception neither to alert the supply chain for collaboration

There is no exchange of information and changes in process to improve water footprint

Government contributes for increasing mistrust

Excessive bureaucracy, lack of strategy and financial incentives: do not help to improve preparedness neither resilience for further events;

Conclusions and Limitations

• Separation between disaster experience and risk management

• Smaller businesses and familiar (non-professional) management

• Difference of perception of risk along the supply chain

• Influence of historical perception of nature events

• Influence of political agenda: climate change denial

Limitations

• Number of firms

• Distribution in supply chain

• Timing

Future Studies

• Changing historic perceptions and embedded routines is difficult for organizations (Levinthal & March, 1993)

• The role of environmental awareness, environmental practices

• The disasters experience, slow-onset events, and uncertainty and difficulty to predict disruption

• Important role of knowledge and information in different business sectors