Tributários No. 21, (Brasilia, Ministry of Finance, 2009), p. 8. [28] Note that, compared to the income of the agricultural sector and the concentration of land discussed below, this sum is particularly minuscule: income in 2006 amounted to R$ 122 billion, while the tax accounted for R$ 304 million, i.e. 0.25 per cent. [29] E. Salvador, “Quem financia e qual o destino dos recursos da seguridade social no Brasil?”, Observatório da Cidadania 2007, pp. 81–90. See also Social Watch International, Social Watch Annual Report 2008: Rights is the answer (Montevideo, Third World Institute, 2008), pp. 102–103. [30] A fiscal module is a municipal unit of measurement, expressed in hectares, that reflects the predominant patterns of land occupation in the region, its profitability and the estimated agricultural needs of a family farm. In practice, a module can vary from 5 ha in fertile, market-connected areas, to 110 ha in remote Amazonian areas. The national median currently is 30 ha. [31] See J. Graziano da Silva, M. Del Grossi, et E. Del Porto, “As (Re) Negociações das Dívidas Agícolas”, Sociedade e Desenvolvimento Rural, vol. 2, No. 1 (2008), pp. 171–188. [32] See Central Bank of Brazil, Anuário Estatístico do Crédito Rural 2008 (Brasilia, 2009). [33] See Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, Censo Agropecuário 2006 – Agricultura Familiar (Rio de Janeiro 2009). [34] See Food and Agriculture Organization, Voluntary Guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security (Rome, FAO, 2005), guideline 8.10. [35] Calculation by the Special Rapporteur obtained by comparing the first and last average yield data from the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Provisioning, 2009 Agroenergy Statistical Yearbook. [36] See A/HRC/10/5/Add.2. [37] L.A. Martinelli and S. Filoso, “Expansion of sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil: environmental and social challenges”, Ecological Applications, vol. 18, No. 4 (June 2008), pp. 885–898. [38] See FIAN International et al., Agrofuels in Brazil: Report of the fact-finding mission to Brazil on the impacts of public policies encouraging the production of agrofuels on the enjoyment of the human rights to food, work and the environment among the peasant and indigenous communities and rural workers in Brazil (2008). Other evidence presented by the Brazilian Government points to opposite conclusions: see J. Goldemberg et al., “The sustainability of ethanol production from sugarcane”, Energy Policy, vol. 36 (April 2008), pp. 2086–2097. On 8 January 2010, it was announced that Cosan SA Industria and Comercio was placed on a list of enterprises found to be violating labour legislation, resulting in this enterprise being cut off from financing by Brazil’s State Development Bank after the company — considered to be the world’s largest sugar-cane processor — was found to have workers in slave-like conditions, This shows both that the problem persists, and the Government takes seriously its responsibility to tackle it. [39] Ibid. [40] See A/HRC/9/23 and A/HRC/12/31, para. 23. [41] See Agrofuels in Brazil,p. 26. [42] The figure of 90 per cent is cited in Agrofuels in Brazil, p. 34. The Government estimates the figure to be between 75 and 80 per cent (estimates of the Ministry of Mines and Energy for 2008 and 2009). The percentage is in any case estimated to be a high one. [43] Data from the Agricultural Census. [44]A/HRC/8/27, para. 83. [45] E/1998/22, annex IV. [46]A/HRC/4/18, annex I.