Smallholders, Agrarian Reform, and Globalization in the Brazilian Amazon

15 Pages·2016·0.74 MB·English

land
Article
Smallholders, Agrarian Reform, and Globalization in
the Brazilian Amazon: Cattle versus the Environment
RitaumariaPereira1,*,CynthiaS.Simmons2andRobertWalker3
1 CenterforSustainabilityandtheGlobalEnvironment,UniversityofWisconsin-Madison,Madison,
WI53726,USA
2 DepartmentofGeography,UniversityofFlorida,Gainesville,FL32611,USA;cssimmons@ufl.edu
3 CenterforLatinAmericanStudies,UniversityofFlorida,Gainesville,FL32611,USA;roberttwalker@ufl.edu
* Correspondence:[email protected];Tel.:[phone]
AcademicEditors:ClaudiaA.RadelandJacquelineM.Vadjunec
Received:13October2015;Accepted:24June2016;Published:7July2016
Abstract: Smallholder farming in the Brazilian Amazon has changed markedly over the last few
decades,followingapervasiveswingtocattleproductionobservedacrossthebasin. Thesechanges
havebroughtopportunitiesforaccumulatingamodicumofwealththatwerenotavailableinthe
early stages of colonization. At the same time, they have reconfigured livelihood systems away
fromdiversifiedagriculturetoastrongengagementwiththecattleeconomy. Theyarealsoexposing
smallholderstonewformsofexploitationbytransnationalcorporations,seekingtopassriskupstream
to less powerful economic agents who provide inputs to production, such as calves. The case of
SoutheasternParáprovidesanaturallaboratoryforinvestigatingsuchphenomena,whichthearticle
considers through the presentation of data from field research conducted in the region over the
pastdecade. Here, agrarianreformeffortshavebeenparticularlyintense, andsocialmovements
haveoftenespousedagreenrhetoricinfavorofdiversifiedagriculture,eventhoughsmallholders
showlittleinterestinanythingbutcattle. HouseholdlevelincentivespromoteAmazonia’semergent
cattleeconomy,demonstratinghowglobalproductionnetworkshavereachedintothebasin,where
productionrelationsbetweensmallholdersprovisioningcalvestolargeranchingoperationsoften
resemblewhathasbeenreferredtointheliteratureas“contractfarming”landgrabs,giventheexploitive
termsoftrade.
Keywords: globalcattleeconomy;productionchainsandnetworks;settlementprojects;Amazonia;
landgrabs
1. Introduction
Since the 1960s, the Brazilian government has advanced a series of comprehensive plans to
integratetheAmazonregionwiththeeconomicandpoliticalcoreofthecountry,includingconstruction
ofahighwaynetworktomakeaccessiblethisvastfrontier,subsidiesandfiscalincentivestoattract
capital investment, and colonization programs to promote orderly in-migration and occupation
necessarytosecureBrazil’sterritorialclaimwhileinthesameeffortsprovidelandtothelandless.
Amazonia’sdevelopmenthistoryrevealsthatgovernmentmotivationsandsubsequentpolicieshave
vacillatedgreatlybetweenanationaldesireforeconomicgrowthviathesupportofprivateinterestsand
thepopulistdemandforlandandopportunity,andtheoutcomesfromtheseeffortslikewisepresent
mixedresults. Ontheonehand,thehighwaynetworkopenedthefrontiertowavesofimmigration
withpopulationincreasesfromfourmillionin1960tomorethan24millionby2010[1],andreduced
transportationcostsmakingtheregionattractivetoagroindustry[2]. Indeed,Brazil’seconomyhas
mostlythrivedsincetheturnofthemillennium,withagroindustryinAmazoniaanimportantpartof
thissuccessstory,particularlytheexpansionofcattleranchingthroughoutthebasin[3]. Ontheother
Land2016,5,24;doi:10.3390/land5030024 www.mdpi.com/journal/land
Land2016,5,24 2of15
hand,theelaboratecolonizationprogramsintendedtorectifyBrazil’s“ruralproblem”andameliorate
growingpopulistdiscontentwereunabletocompletelysatisfythesocietaldemandforland,andled
toconflictsandrapidratesofdeforestation[3].
Despitethischeckereddevelopmenthistory,thereislittledoubtthatthelivelihoodsystemsofthe
smallholderswhowereoriginallytargetedforcolonizationhaveevolveddramaticallyoverthepast
fewdecades,frommostlysubsistencefarmingbasedstrictlyonhouseholdresources,tosmall-scale
ranchingtiedtotheglobaleconomyviaproductionnetworks. Atthesametime,apowerfulagrarian
reform movement has successfully pressured the government to provide land to the landless in
thousandsofnewsettlementprojects(SPs)intendedtosupportfamilyfarming.Amazonia’ssmallholders
arenolongerautarchicpeasantslivingbeyondtheagriculturalfrontier. Theyarenowfullyengaged
agents in Brazil’s export economy, and, frequently, energetic participants in the region’s agrarian
politics. Although a potential development success in certain terms, this social transformation
of Amazonia’s rural population presents more dubious results for the environment, and for the
participatinghouseholdsthemselves. Thelivelihoodsystemsarehighlyfocusedonanimalhusbandry,
anagriculturalactivityheldresponsibleforthelion’sshareofAmazoniandeforestation. Further,the
neweconomicstatusoftheformerpeasanthasalsobroughtnewpotentialsforexploitationonthe
partoflarge-scaleranchersandtheemergentfood-processingsector.
Thegoalofthepresentpaperistoexaminetheproductiveactivitiesofsmallholderslivingin
SPs,andhowexpandingengagementwiththeglobalcattleeconomyisaffectingland-usedecisions
inagrarianreformsettlementsthatwerecreatedasamechanismtoalleviatepovertyandpromote
foodsecuritythroughdiversifiedandsustainablecropproduction. Itdoessobyfirstchartingthepath
ofcattleexpansionintheBrazilianAmazon,andlinkingthistoskewedpatternsoflandownership
thathaveariseninitswake. Thepaperthenexploreshowagrarianreformmovementshavearisen
asaconsequence,withaparticularemphasisontheformationofSPsthroughpoliticalmobilization
thathasbeenreferredtoasdirectactionlandreform,orDALR[4]. Next,researchresultsarepresented
thatdocumentthecircumstancesthathaveencouragedsmallholdersinSoutheasternParátoadopt
livelihoodsystemsfocusedoncattle,whichisincontradictiontotheenvironmentalrequirementsfor
SPformation.Inaddition,findingsgiveevidencetotheemergentcattleproductionchain,includingthe
practiceofcontract“calving”arrangementsthatlinksmallholdersinSPstolargeranchingoperations
andtheappearanceintheregionofheavilycapitalizedcorporateinterestsengagedinexport.
1.1. CattleandAgrarianReform
Amazonia’s cattle economy has been key to Brazil’s emergence as an economic power, but it
came with a high cost to both the environment and society. In the Brazilian Amazon, it is mainly
large-scale producers who are driving commercial agricultural development, while smallholders
are finding it economically viable to replace forest and old croplands by planting pasture [5].
Walkeretal.[6],Poccard-Chapuisetal.[7],andVostietal.[8]attributedthisgradualtransformation
of crops and forestlands into planted pasture in small-scale farms to a widespread process of
pecuarização,orexpansionofthecattleranchingeconomytowardtheAmazon’sgeographicallimits.
ParticipationofsmallholdersinthecattleeconomyhasbeenanalyzedinstudiesdevelopedbyHomma
andWalkeretal.[9,10]. Bothstudiescomparedcattleherdsandpastureclearanceinareasownedby
smallproducers(land<100ha). HommafoundthatsmallproducerslivingneartheTransamazon
highwayinAltamiraraisedanaverageof1.4animalsper6.4hectaresofpasturein1975[9]. Inthe
sameregion,in2000,Walkeretal. foundthatsmallproducershadincreasedtheaveragenumberof
animalsto33,whichrequiredanaverageof37hectaresofpastureland[10]. Thesefindingsshowthat,
overtime,moreanimalswerebeingraisedoneachproperty. Thisinturnimpliesthatmoreareawas
neededforpastureandconsequentlylesswasavailableforagriculture. Infact,Hommaobservedthat
theamountoflandattributedtopasturewassimilartotheamountusedforcroppingintheproperties
visitedin1975[9],whileWalkeretal. foundthatonlyone-tenthofthetotallandallocatedtopasture
wasusedforcropping[10].
Land2016,5,24 3of15
FarmleveldynamicssuchastheseunderlieapervasiveshifttocattleranchingintheAmazon
atlarge. Despiteearlyprognosticationthattheregionwasnotviableforagricultureandranching
in particular offered little promise of success without massive government subsidies [11], animal
husbandryhasprovenmoresuccessfulandresilient[12]. RanchinghasalongAmazonianhistory,but
whenthemilitaryregimebeganitspushinthemid-1960stoopenthenorth,theregionaccounted
for only about 8 percent of Brazilian stock [13]. By 1990, the Amazonian herd reached about
20millionanimals,andby2005itaddedanother50millionhead,growingtoover70millionanimals
dispersedwidelyacrossthebasin. Asof2013,thecattleherdinAmazoniawasover80millionanimals,
accountingformorethan25percentofBrazilianexportofbeefdestinedtosatisfydemandsaround
theworld,withmarketsinLatinAmerica,theEuropeanUnion,theMiddleEast,andAsia,including
China[2]. Alongwithcattleexpansion,pastureincreasedfrom0.7percentofthetotalregionin1970
to10percentby2004[14]. Implicatedinthisprocessisdeforestation,sincemorethan80percentof
clearedareasintheBrazilianAmazonarededicatedtopastureformation[10,15–17].
Unfortunately,land-extensivecattleranchinghasalsoresultedinthereplicationoflandinequality
observedinotherpartsofBrazil,asearlysmallholderswereforcedfromtheirlandduetotheirinability
tocompeteinmarketsorthroughviolentappropriationbylargeholders,whichpushedthemfurther
intoforestfrontiersorgrowingfrontierboomtowns. By2007,almost60millionhectaresoflandin
Amazoniawereownedbyonepercentofestablishmentsthatformedanelitegroupofwealthyranchers,
whilealimited4.4millionhectareswereoccupiedbysmallfarmers,whorepresented45percentof
the establishments [18]. Displaced farmers forced to urban areas exacerbate already high rates of
unemploymentandpoverty[19]. Inturn,growingcadresofthepoorincitiesareeasilymobilizedto
participateindirectactionlandreform,orDALR,whichischaracterizedbythemilitantoccupations,
carried out by hundreds of landless farmers on large ranches deemed illegal or unproductive by
movementleaders[4]. Thishasenflamedlandconflictintheregion,asthelandlessandtheiradvocates
engageinDALRtoconfrontlargelandownersandpressurethegovernmenttofollowthroughon
agrarianreformpromises.
Thegovernmenthasrespondedwithnewpolicyinitiatives,especiallyintheaftermathofthe
EldoradodoCarajásmassacrein1996when19landlessfarmerswerekilledbythemilitarypolice
duringaprotest[3]. Ratherthanreturntothelarge-scale,state-ledcolonizationprogramsofthe1970s,
thegovernmentshiftedfocuswiththecreationofaNovoMundoRural,ornewruralworld,basedonthe
promotionandsupportofsmallfarmersinSPs. Todate,nearly9250SPshavebeencreatedinBrazil,
housingmorethan968,000families;mostarelocatedinthenorthandnortheast,thepoorestregionsin
thecountry[20]. Unliketraditionalstate-ledcolonizationefforts,policymandatesthatSPsbeinitiated
at the grassroots level, an action that usually initiates with the involvement of a social movement
organization,orSMO,suchastheLandlessRuralWorkers’Movement(MST).SMOsoftenplayactive
rolesinthemanagementofSPsactingasrepresentativestotheNationalInstituteforColonizationand
AgrarianReform(INCRA),negotiatingbudgetsfortransferpaymentsanddistribution,andfacilitating
extensionservices[2,4,21].
INCRA’sadministrativerequirementisthatparticipantsfirstestablishanofficialSPassociation,
and next create a Development Plan (PDA) that outlines the social, economic, and environmental
strategiestobepursuedinachievingsustainabledevelopment. Theexpectationisthatsmallholders
willhaveagreaterinvestmentintheSP,andchancesforsuccesswillbehighergiventheirengagement
andcommitment,asopposedtothecolonizationprogramsofthe1970s[22]. Aftertheassociationand
PDAareestablished,thegovernmentprovidesresourcesforhousingandinfrastructure,andadditional
supportthroughamyriadofcreditsaimedatexpandingformalandtechnicaleducation,improving
incomeofresidents,andpromotingsustainableeconomicactivitiesbeyondtraditionalmethodsof
agriculture. Policyexplicitlyprohibitsmonoculturesystems,suchascattleranching,andsuggeststhat
creditandextensionmustfocusondiversifiedandsustainableagriculturepractices[23,24].
However,contrarytoINCRApoliciesandtheviewsoftheSMOs,whicharedecidedly“green,”
a significant number of the smallholders living in SPs have focused production on cattle [4].
Land2016,5,24 4of15
Forexample, in a study of SPs in Southeastern Pará, Simmons and colleagues in 2006 found that
75 percent of the occupants viewed cattle as their primary agricultural activity [4]. Such findings
mirrorrecentethnographicstudiesacrossthebasin,suggestingthatsmallholdersareshiftingfrom
subsistenceagriculturetoapasture-basedfarmingsystem[10,25,26]. Eventraditionalgroupsthat
originallyengagedinextractiveactivities,suchastherubbertappersintheChicoMendesreserve,
haveinsteadoptedforcattleranching[17].
The extent to which land use in the SPs reflects this more general interest in cattle on the
part of smallholders points to an apparent disconnect between policy and practice. This situation
is potentially problematic given Brazil’s recent adherence to the principles of the UN program
to reduce emissions from forest degradation and deforestation (i.e., UN-REDD). REDD+ policies
recognize the negative role played by ranching as a driver of deforestation, and the importance
ofinvolvingtheregion’sresidentsinsustainabledevelopmentactivitiestomitigateenvironmental
degradation (http://www.un-redd.org/ and www.imazon.org.br). If REDD is to be successful in
Brazil,policymakersneedtounderstandtheagrariansector,includingtheproductiveactivitiesof
the many smallholders presently residing in Amazonian SPs. Thus, it is essential to identify the
factorsmotivatingthesefarmerstoparticipateintheexpandingglobalcattleeconomy,asopposedto
agroforestryorothergreenalternatives.Thisarticledirectlyaddressesthegapinourknowledgeonthis
front,andpresentstheresultsoffieldresearchexaminingthefarmingsystemsanddecision-making
of SP residents in the lower Amazon Basin. In doing so, it identifies the potential barriers to the
implementationofmorediversifiedandenvironmentallysustainableproductionsystemsthatalign
withINCRApolicyandnewREDD+programs. Theresearchalsoprovidesevidenceoftheinsertion
oftheSPsintotheglobalcattleeconomythroughcontractfarming,andsubsequentimplicationsfor
thesocialwelfareofresidentsmallholders.
1.2. ConceptualFramework
LandChangeScience(LCS)studiesofAmazoniansmallholdersoftenrelyonpeasanteconomics
andtheoriesofthehouseholdlifecyclethataddressbehaviorsofdecentralizedlandmanagerswho
clear the forest in order to provide familial subsistence [26–28]. In these accounts, decisions are
economically rational, if highly constrained by resource endowments. While acknowledging the
utilityofthesefoundationaltheories,thepresentpaperheedsthecallbyMunroeetal.[29]toengage
withapproachesfromNewEconomicGeographythatredirectourattentionfromdecentralizedland
managerstocorporateactors,governancesystems,theculturalembeddednessofeconomicactivities,
andglobalizedproductionanddistributionnetworks[30]. Inparticular,weincorporateaspectsof
theproductionnetworkperspective,andmaintainthatsmallholdersandranchers,whoinprevious
decadeswereadversariesinthestruggleforland,todayengageoneanotherininput-outputrelations
inthemutualinterestofprovidingbeeftoanexpandingglobalmarket.Thesenewproductionrelations
arefurthermotivatedandmaintainedbyBrazil’scontradictoryagrarianreformprograms,andthe
unintendedoutcomesofenvironmentalregulations. Inthepresentationanddiscussionofourresults
wedescribetheemergingglobalcattleeconomyintheregionwithspecificattentiontosmallholder
production systems and exchange mechanisms with ranchers. We provide evidence of exploitive
production relations in the region, which may portend a new wave of contention brought on by
whathasbeenreferredtointheliteratureasalandgrabthroughinformalcontractfarming[31–33].
Ourtheoreticalcontributionresidesinbuildingfromtheoriesoftraditionalpeasanthouseholdsand
economics,andweddingthelandgrabconcepttotheemergenceofnewproductiverelationsinthe
Amazon,specificallySoutheasternPará.
2. Methods
Thepresentarticleattemptstoshedlightonthefactorsinfluencingthedominanceofcattle-based
systemsinagrarianreformsettlements,whichcontradicttheagro-ecologyanddiversifiedproduction
systems promoted by social movements. To this end, it presents the findings of several research
Land2016,5,24 5of15
activities undertaken in Southeastern Pará, a region that has long been targeted by development
pLaonldic 2i0e1s6,, a5n, 2d4 h asthereforeexperiencedsignificantgrowthassociated,inpart,withanexpandingc5a otft 1le5
sector. Today,thisregionisoneofBrazil’slargestbeefexportingareastointernationalmarkets,as
ainrteesrunalttioofncaol nmcearrtkeedtsg, oavs ear rnemsuelnt toifn cvoensctmerteendts gtooveerrandmiceantte inFovoesttamnednMts otou tehraDdiisceaates eFo(FoMt aDn)d, aMnoduitths
sDuibseseaqseu e(FnMtdDes),i gannadti oitns assubasFeMquDe-nftr edeezsoignneaitnio2n0 0a7s, ao pFeMnDto-firnetee rznoantieo nina l2e0x0p7o, rotpuennd etor rienqteurinreamtioennatsl
oexfpthoertW uonrdlderO rergqauniriezmatieonntsf oorf Athnei mWaolrHlde Oalrtgha[n1i2z]a.tTiohne froerg iAonniamlsaol hHaesaalthlo [n1g2]h. iTsthoer yreogfiolann adlscoo nhflaisc at,
plointtgin ghitshtoerlya nodf lelasnsda gcaoinnsflticlat,r gpeitrtainngc htehres ,laannddltersisg gaegrainingstp olalritgicea rlamncohbeilrisz,a atinodn ftorirgtgheeripnugr ppooslietsicoafl
amgorabriliiaznatrieofno rfmor tthhaet phuarsproessueslt oedf aignrtahreiacnr eraetfioornmo tfhmata hnaysS rPessu[4lt]e.d in the creation of many SPs [4].
TThhee rreesseeaarrcchh pprreesseenntteedd hheerree wwaass coconndduuctcetded ini n2021001,0 2,021011, 1a,nadn 2d01220,1 2su, msummimngi ntog ato toatatlo toafl soixf
smixonmtohns tohfs foieflfidewldowrko rtkhatth aetnetanitlaeidle: d(1:)( 1h)ohuosuesheohlodl dsusruvrevyesy swwitiht h10140 4reresisdideenntsts, ,sseelelecctteedd ffrroomm aa ssuubbsseett
ooff hhoouusseehhoollddss vviissiitteedd iinn 22000066,, ffrroomm SSPPss iinn SSoouutthheeaasstteerrnn PPaarráá ((FFiigguurree 11));; ((22)) iinntteerrvviieewwss wwiitthh 3300 kkeeyy
iinnffoorrmmaannttss tthhaatt ininccluluddeedd cocmommmunuintyit ylealedaedres,r sS,MSOM rOeprreepsreensteantitvaetisv, easn,da gnodvgeronvmerennmt oefnfticoiaflfisc, iaasl sw,ealsl
wase klleays akcteoyrsa icnto trhse irnegthioenr’es gciaotntl’es pcraotdtluecptiroond uchcatiionn; acnhda i(n3;) athned c(o3l)letchtieocno allnedc taiossnesasnmdeansts oefs srmegeionntaolf,
reecgoinoonmali,ce caonndo menicvairnodnemnevnirtoanl mdeantata lfrdoamta fgroovmergnomveernntm seonutrscoeus,r cseusc,hsu achs athseth eBrBarzaizliialina nIInnssttitituuttee ooff
GGeeooggrraapphhyy aanndd SSttaattiissttiiccss( (IIBBGGEE),),t htheeN NaatitoionnalalI nInstsittiututetefo froSr pSapcaecRe eRseesaeracrhc(hI N(IPNEP)E,N), aNtiaotnioanlaInl sItnitsutitteuotef
Cofo lCoonliozantiizoantiaonnd aAngdr aArigarnarRiaenfo rRmef(oIrNmC R(IAN)C,FRuAn)d, aFçuãnodCaaçsãaod CaaCsua ltduar aCdueltMuraar adbeá ,Manadratbháe, Barnazdi ltiahne
ABrgarziciluialtnu rAaglrRiceuseltaurrcahl CRoerspeaorrcahti oCnor(pEoMraBtRioAnP (AE)M. BRAPA).

FFiigguurree 11.. SSttuuddyy aarreeaa:: llooccaattiioonn aanndd yyeeaarr ooff ccrreeaattiioonn ooff sseettttlleemmeennttss iinn PPaarráá,, BBrraazziill.. SSoouurrccee:: IINNCCRRAA,, 22001100
((ppeerrssoonnaall ccoonnttaacctt))..
TThhee ssttuuddyy ssiitteess iinncclluuddee ssiixx SSPPss iinn tthhrreeee mmuunniicciippaalliittiieess llooccaatteedd iinn SSoouutthheeaasstteerrnn PPaarráá,, wwhhiicchh
ccoorrrreessppoonnddeedd ttoo aa ssuubbsseett ooff ssiitteess vviissiitteedd dduurriinngg tthhee SSiimmmmoonnss--lleedd,, NNSSFF--ssuuppppoorrtteedd pprroojjeecctt iinn 22000066 tthhaatt
rreessuulltteedd iinn tthhee ccoolllleeccttiioonn ooff eexxtteennssiivvee ssuurrvveeyyss oonn hhoouusseehhoolldd cchhaarraacctteerriissttiiccss aanndd aaggrroonnoommiicc aaccttiivviittiieess
ooff rreessiiddeennttss [[44]].. TThhee ddaattaa iiddeennttiiffiieedd tthhoossee hhoouusseehhoollddss eennggaaggeedd iinn ccaattttllee ((ii..ee..,, hheeaadd ooff ccaattttllee;; aarreeaa iinn
ppaassttuurree)),, bbuutt tthhee ssuurrvveeyy iinnssttrruummeenntt wwaass lliimmiitteedd iinn tteerrmmss ooff eexxpplliiccaattiinngg tthheeiirr pprroodduuccttiioonn ssyysstteemmss aanndd
tthhee iimmppoorrttaannccee ooff iinnssttiittuuttioionnaallm meecchhaannisimsmssf oforrc rcerdeditiat nadnda gargarraiarinansu spuppoprot.rtC. oCnosnesqeuqeunetnlyt,lya,s au bsusebtsoeft
1o2f 112h1o uhsoeuhsoelhdosledns geanggeadgiend ciant tclaetftrloe mfrothme t2h0e0 620fi0e6l dfiwelodrwkowrekr ewseerlee csteeldecftoerds fuobrs seuqbuseenqtureenset arrecsheaarncdh
and a new round of surveys was devised with the objective to elicit greater details on (1) cattle
anewroundofsurveyswasdevisedwiththeobjectivetoelicitgreaterdetailson(1)cattleproduction
production (i.e., head of cattle for meat, for milk, quantity sold, to whom sold, prices and costs); (2)
(i.e., headofcattleformeat, formilk, quantitysold, towhomsold, pricesandcosts); (2)cropping
cropping system (i.e., crop type, yield, area planted, quantity sold); and (3) the types of credit and
technological extension provided for each activity.1 Additionally, the household surveys enabled the

1 The 2006 fieldwork resulted in 161 household surveys in the six SPs, and 121 respondents (75
percent) reported engagement in cattle activities.
Land2016,5,24 6of15
system(i.e.,croptype,yield,areaplanted,quantitysold);and(3)thetypesofcreditandtechnological
extensionprovidedforeachactivity.1 Additionally,thehouseholdsurveysenabledthecollectionof
detaileddataonincome(e.g.,governmenttransfer)andexpenses(e.g.,food,revolvingcreditpayments)
thatpermittedanassessmentoftheimportanceofvariouseconomicactivitiesonthelivelihoodsofthe
SPresidents. Thesurveysalsoincludedopen-endedqueriestoprobetherespondentsdirectlyontheir
economicdecisions,incentives/motivations,andpotentialbarrierstoproduction.
The data collection involved both random and systematic sampling methods. For the initial
2006datacollection,theSPwasdividedintoquadrantstoensuregeospatialrepresentation,andthen
every3rdhousealongtheroadwasselected;ifthelandownerwasnotpresent,thenexthousewas
visited,andsoonuntila20percentsampleofhouseholdswasreached. In2010,apilotstudywas
conductedtotestthesurveyinstrumentandensurethatthe2006samplingstrategycouldberepeated,
confirmingourabilitytoreachthesamesmallfarmersforthefollow-upsurveys. Finaldatacollection
occurredin2011,duringwhichtime104ofthe121households(85percent)werelocatedandsurveys
completed. Thedatapresentedherearefromthe2011fieldwork,whichqueriedrespondentsabout
agricultural involvement and productivity measures from the previous year (2010). The analyses
undertakendeploymultiplemodesofassessmentbasedonfree-forminterviewsofkeyinformants
conductedin2010,2011,and2012,andsystematicsurveysofsettlementhouseholdsin2011. Weuse
the interview data to provide our framing context, and also to identify biophysical, political, and
historicalcircumstancesofwhichindividualhouseholdsmaybeunaware. Asforthesurveydata,we
usedescriptivestatisticstoportrayhouseholdincomeandexpenditures,aswellasfarmingsystem
attributesintheregion. Wealsoemployapplicationsofinferencetogaugethestatisticalsignificance
ofthekeyissuesandargumentsaddressedinthepresentarticle. Thus,ouranalyticalapproachis
amulti-methodonethatyieldsbothcontextanddetail.
Finally key informant interviews were conducted in 2011 and 2012 with public officials, SMO
representatives,communityleaders,andactorsengagedinthecattleproductionchain. Theseinterviews
servedmultipleresearchobjectives. First, theyprovidedinsightandcontextregardingthefactors
that impacted SP residents’ decisions to invest in cattle, and the potential barriers to adoption of
a more diversified agriculture system. Second, they provided necessary details that informed our
understandingoftheroleofsmallholdersintheregionalglobalcattleeconomy.
3. ResultsandDiscussion
3.1. HouseholdandFarmingSystemCharacteristics
Descriptivestatisticsforsocioeconomiccharacteristicsofhouseholdsinthe2011sampleshow
that71percentofhouseholdheadsweremale,withameanageof53years(seeTable1). Onaverage,
four people lived on each property, with a residence of 11 years on site. In terms of education,
the average for the household head was three years of formal education, with 23 percent of those
interviewedilliterate,andonlyonepersonintheentiresamplewhoreachedthemaximumlevelof
formaleducation(15yearswithacollegedegree). Thepropertysizerangedfrom8to50hectareswith
ameanof33hectares,indicatingthatallpropertiesfellwithintheregionallimits(5to70hectares)of
theMóduloRural,whichisaclassificationforpropertieseligibleforgovernmentagriculturalassistance
programsanddeemedasizesufficientforfamilyfarmingthatensuresfoodsecurity,aswellassocial
andeconomicprogress,whichisthegoaloftheSPs(SeeTable1).
Oftheestimated53percentofhouseholdsthatreportedinvolvementwithcroppingin2010,most
statedthatthelanddedicatedtocropswassmall,andonly20percentwereabletoreportthearea
planted,whichaveraged4hectares.Anestimated7percentindicatedthattheysoldlimitedproduction
1 The2006fieldworkresultedin161householdsurveysinthesixSPs,and121respondents(75percent)reportedengagement
incattleactivities.
Land2016,5,24 7of15
to local markets. Corn, rice, and manioc were the three most important crops planted, primarily
forfamilyconsumptionorfeedforanimals, withtheexceptionoftwohouseholdsthatsoldsmall
quantitiesofmaniocflourtoneighbors(seeTable2).Beyondannualsproduction,avarietyoffruittrees
wereplantedinsmallnumbers,withahandfuloffarmerssellingbananaandcacao. Despitetheplans
fordiversifiedfoodproductionelaboratedinthePDAs,smallholdersindicatedminimalinvolvement
withcropping,andanestimated47percentofhouseholdsstatedthattheyplantednocropsatall.
Table1.Generalcharacteristicsofhouseholds(N=104).
Variable Mean(Std.Dev.) Min Max
Age 52.73(12.18) 19 78
Numberofpeople 4.47(2.57) 0 14
Lengthonproperty(years) 11.71(4.70) 3 25
Lotsize(hectares) 33.68(10.17) 8 50
Education(years) 3.13(3.19) 0 15
Table2.Croppingsystemcharacteristicsforprimarycropsin2010(N=104).
AreaPlanted(Hectares)
CropType No.Smallholders1 Mean Median Min Max No.WhoSoldCrops?
Corn 16 0.37 0 0 5 0
Rice 13 0.08 0 0 1 0
Manioc 13 1 0 0 10 2
Banana 4 0 0 0 0 1
Cupuaçu 3 1.67 0 0 5 0
Sugarcane 1 5 5 5 5 0
Orange 2 0 0 0 0 0
Açai 1 0 0 0 0 0
Passionfruit 1 1 1 1 1 0
Cacao 1 5 5 5 5 1
1 Alimited55outofthe104householdsreportedthattheyplantedcrops, andonly11coulddefinethe
areaplanted.
Incontrasttolackofinvolvementincropping,71percentofrespondentsreportedhavingcattle
in2010. Thisisnotsurprisinggiventhatthefocusofthisresearchwassmallholdercattleproduction
activitiesinSPs,thus,themaincriterionforsampleselectionwashouseholdengagementwithcattle
inthe2006fieldworkbySimmonsandcolleagues. Ofthe29percentreportingnocattlein2010,all
indicatedthattheyhadcattlepreviously,butneededtosellanimalsinordertopayaccumulatingdebts,
andtheirplansweretore-buildtheirherdsinthefuture. Othersmallholdersstatedthattheyrented
pasture,atabout9percentofthesample. Acomparisonofcattledatafromthe2006and2011surveys
revealssomenotablechanges. Themeannumberofanimals(cows)perpropertyincreasedfrom19to
21,whichcorrespondswithpastureexpansionbyalmost19percent,fromanaverage18hectaresto
22hectaresperproperty(seeTable3). Despitetheseincreases,therewasadecreaseinanimaldensity
perlotacrossthefive-yearperiod.Thedeclineincattledensitywouldappeartocontradicttheexpected
pecuarizaçãoofAmazonia,andtheoverallimportanceofcattleintheregion[12]. Indeed,thestocking
density is below smallholder averages in other parts of Amazonia (i.e., 1 animal/hectare), which
isreflectiveofahighlyunproductivelandusethatraisesconcernsaboutsmallholderwelfareand
environmentalsustainability. However,furtheranalysisofthedatashowsthatwhilemeanchangesin
animalsbetween2006and2011werenotstatisticallysignificant,changesinareaunderpastureand
animaldensity(cows/hectare)were. Thesefindingssuggestthatdecreasesindensityweredueto
increasesinpasture,ratherthanreductioninanimals.
Land2016,5,24 8of15
Table3.Cattle,pasture,andstockingdensity:Changesbetween2005and2010(N=104).
FarmSystemCharacteristics 2006Mean(Std.Dev.) 2011Mean(Std.Dev.) DiffMean(Std.Dev.)
Cattle(heads) 19(19.47) 21(27.08) 1.21(26.75)
PastureArea(hectares)1 18.22(12.41) 21.66(11.98) 3.44(14.24)
Density(animals/hectare)1 1.30(1.15) 0.95(1.03) ´0.35(1.39)
1Statisticallysignificantat5percent.
In general, the livestock system of smallholders is distinct from that of large ranchers, who
specializeincommercialproductionwithanimalsgeneticallymanipulatedtoproducehighquality
beefinashortperiod. Fortheirpart,smallholdershaveamixedherd(dairyandbeef)ratherthan
pure-bredcattle,becausesuchanimalsarelessexpensiveandtheybettermeetthedualneedsofmilk
productionandcalving. Ofthe74householdsreportingcattlein2010,30percentreportedengagement
indairy, 9percentinmeatproduction, and61percentofsmallholdersreportedmixeddairy-meat
activities(seeTable4). Whenitcomestoanimalssoldin2010,regardlessofreportedactivity,calves
werebyfarthemostimportant,with85percentofthesamplereportingcalfsalescomparedtoonly
31percentwhosoldcowsformeat(seeTable4). Furthermore,almostthreetimesasmanycalveswere
soldthancows,andthosereportingmeatormixedmeat-dairyproductionactuallysoldmorecalves.
Fromtheinterviewswithsmallholdersitbecameapparentthatcalvingoperationsweretheprimary
focusoftheiractivities,andthevastmajorityofsalesweretomiddlemenworkingwithlargeranchers
in the region. In general, farmers stated that they sold primarily male calves to middlemen and
ranchers,andcowsoverfiveyearsofageandsicklytothelocalbutcher. Finally,nearlyallhouseholds
withcattlereceivedcreditoriginallyprovidedfordairycattle,butmostofthemareengagedinmixed
production(dairyandbeef),andonly13percentsaidtheyproducedalimitedquantityofmilkforsale
inlocalmarkets,theremainingproducedmilkforselfconsumption.
Table4.Cattleproductionsystemcharacteristicsin2010(N=104).
No.(%TotalSmallholders No.(%)Who Quantity No.(%)
Type Mean Buyer
withCattle) SoldAnimals? withCredit
Min Max
66%middlemen/local
18(82%) Calves 1 15 5.4
Dairy 22(30%) ranchers 18(82%)
6(27%) Cows 1 8 2.3 localbutcher
7(100%) Calves 1 15 5 71%tomiddlemen
Meat 7(9%) 7(100%)
2(29%) Cows 1 1 1 localbutcher
96%middlemen/local
41(91%) Calves 1 30 8.1
Mixed 45(61%) ranchers 38(84%)
15(33%) Cows 1 5 2.4 localbutcher
TOTALWITHCATTLE:74(100%)
3.2. IncomeandExpenditures
Overall,non-cattleagriculturalproductionrankedonlyfourthasasourceofincome,providing
lessthan10percentoftheannualaverage(SeeTable5). Off-farmemploymentprovidedthehighest
income(28percent),althoughonly30percentofthesamplereportedinvolvementinsuchactivities,
and the average income was skewed as a result of a select few residents with formal sector jobs
(e.g.,teacher,ambulancedriver). Byandfarthemostimportantincomesourcewas(1)government
transfers,at28percentaverageannualincome,thatwerereceivedby68percentofthesample,followed
by (2) the sale of calves to large ranchers at 17 percent, involving 60 percent of those interviewed
(Table3). Governmentsupportincluded: (1)bolsa-família(theFamilyAllowance);(2)ruralretirement;
and (3) disability retirement. Bolsa-família is a governmental direct cash transfer program designed
to reduce poverty, with payment tied to child vaccinations and school attendance. This monthly
householdstipendchangesaccordingtoperpersonincome,numberofchildrenandadolescentsupto
17yearsold,andnumberofpregnantandlactatingwomeninthefamily. Forthesample,theamount
Land2016,5,24 9of15
variedfromUS$16to$151permonth. Ruralretirementbenefitscanbeclaimedbyallruralworkers
whoprovetheyhaveworkedandcontributedtosocialsecurityforatleast180months,andhavemet
theretirementage(60yearsformalesand55yearsforfemales). Theretirementincomeisalways
equivalenttooneminimumwage,whichatthetimedatawerecollectedwasUS$2702permonth[30].
Disabilityretirement,alsoequivalenttooneminimumwage,isabenefitgrantedtoemployeesincapable
ofworkingduetoillnessoraccident,inaccordancewithacertificationbyamedicalgroupapproved
bytheofficeofSocialSecurity.
Table5.Summaryofannualincomesourcesin2010,inBrazilianreais(BRZR$),athouseholdlevel(N=104).
IncomeSource Mean(Std.Dev.) Min Max No.(%)Smallholders3
Off-farmJobs1 4004(7773) 0 37,200 37(30%)
Governmentpayments 3929(4837) 0 21,924 71(68%)
Calves 2377(3477) 0 27,000 65(60%)
CropSales 1291(3279) 0 18,000 30(29%)
Milk 776(2544) 0 17,217 13(13%)
Off-farmDayLabor2 772(2112) 0 12,000 21(20%)
OtherLivestock 514(1697) 0 11,800 35(34%)
Cows 453(1048) 0 5000 27(26%)
PastureRental 231(872) 0 6000 10(10%)
TotalAnnualIncome 14,405(10,443) 1200 56,108 104
1 Off-farmjobsrefertoformalemploymentofftheproperty,meaningthatafamilymemberhasasteady
jobelsewhere;2Off-farmdaylaborreferstowagesearnedbyfamilymembersforworkingotherproperties;
3Respondentsreportedmorethanoneincomesource.
In terms of monthly expenses, an estimated one-third of smallholder income is used to pay
principalandinterestonloansacquiredduringinitialcreationoftheSPs(31percent),andanadditional
28percentofmonthlyincomeisusedtopurchasefoodatlocalgrocerystores. Indeed,despiteclaims
extollingthevirtueofandcommitmenttoagro-ecologyandfoodsovereigntyadvocatedinSPpolicies,
thevastmajorityofhouseholds(88percent)reportedthattheyboughtmostoftheirfoodatgrocery
stores. Corroborating this finding, one smallholder reported that, “It’s cheaper to buy vegetables
and meat in the grocery stores than produce them myself” (personal communication, April 2011).
Anothersubstantialexpensestemsfrommonthlyinstallmentstopayoffcreditforthepurchaseof
durablegoods,suchasmotorcycles,refrigerators,andTVs,amountingtoabout9percentofmonthly
income. Interestingly, the increase in debt from the purchase of durable goods coincides with the
arrivalofelectricityintheSPsaspartoftheLuzParaTodosprogram(LightforAll),initiatedin2003to
eradicateelectricityexclusioninBrazil’sruralareas[26]. Bythetimeofthe2011fieldwork,71percent
ofhouseholdsstatedtheyhadaccesstoelectricityforthefirsttime,withaveragemonthlycostsofUS
$21,or3.5percentoftotalincome.Othermonthlyexpenses,inorderofimportance,includemedication,
water,andrentforhousingnearerthecitycenter,whichisnecessaryforsendingchildrentoschool.
3.3. SmallholderDecisionMaking: CropsversusCattle
In terms of institutional support for agriculture, only 33 people said they received credit for
non-cattle(oralternative)activities. Ofthosewhodidreceivecreditforalternativeproductionsuchas
cropping(e.g.,cassava,banana,coconut)orsmallanimals(e.g.,poultry),alimited3peoplearestill
involvedinthoseactivitiesin2011. Whenqueriedastothereasonsfornolongerengaginginthese
activities,respondentsidentified,inorderofimportance: theabsenceoftechnicalsupport,accidental
fires, and their lack of experience with intended crops. As one smallholder put it, “Crops did not
developsincetherewasnotechnicalsupportorevaluationofsoilsandwaterintheregion. Therewas
nocontractestablishingbananasales,andIwouldnotknowwheretoselltheproductevenifithad
2 TheminimumwageinBrazilchangesevery1January.In2012thisvaluereachedUS$308.
Land2016,5,24 10of15
workedoutwell”(personalcommunication,April2011). Inadditiontocriticismassociatedwithlack
oftechnicalsupportandmarketstrength,itwasalsomentionedwithhighfrequencythatsoilswere
notsufficientlyfertile,andthatadditionalinputswouldbeneeded,suchasexpensivefertilizersand
tractors,whichonlylarge-scalefarmerscanafford.
Allextensionagentsinterviewedrecognizedthepotentialviabilityintheregionfortheproduction
ofcassavaflour,banana,pineapple,passionfruit,cupuaçuandaçaí. However,theseoptionsarelimited
byanumberofproblemsthatmustberesolvedbeforethesecropscanbeproductive. Foremostamong
themistheabsenceofawell-developedproductionchainforthoseproducts. Furthermore,roadsare
inpoorconditionduringtheextendedrainyseason,makingitimpossibletobringperishableproducts
tothecityintimetogetagoodreturn. Forinstance,acerolacherryandaçai,twoviableandprofitable
cropsfortheregion,needtoreachthemarketwithin24hafterharvest,andcupuaçuwithinawindow
offourdays(personalcommunication,extensionagent,Marabá,April2011). Whenitcametimeto
recommendproductiveactivitiesfortheregion,theselogisticalbarrierswereofgreaterconcernthan
thephysicalandchemicalcharacteristicsofthesoils. Anotherproblemrelatestothelackofcontinuity
intechnicalsupportfordiversifiedcropproductionafterthecontractwithINCRAhasended. Afinal
obstacle to crop production stems from the lack of laboratories in the region qualified to perform
scientificanalysisofsoils,whichisessentialforanyagriculturalplans.
Of those 33 smallholders who had invested in alternative production, only nine (27 percent)
considered this more profitable than investments in cattle. The most frequent explanation related
to inadequate lot size for cattle to be economically viable and the long-term unsustainability
of pasture in an area where soil quality is questionable. Indeed, smallholders understand that
productivityandprofitabilityarerelatedtoseasonality,investmentintechnologyandsoilqualityin
theregion. Theimportanceofseasonalitybecameanissueforconsiderationduringourdatacollection.
Forexample,whenthequestionnairewastestedinJuly2010,smallholdersfromSPCastanhalAraras
reportedthattheregionwasnotgoodforanything,andthatafter23yearsofsettlementcreation,there
wasnotasingleprofitableplantationoperatingintheregion. However,duringthefinaldatacollection
in2011,whichhappenedduringcupuaçuharvestseason,welearnedthatmanysmallholderswere
engagedinproductionofthatfruit.
Onerespondentreportedthatitwaspossibletosellupto60kilogramsofcupuaçupulpperday,at
apriceuptoUS$2.50perkg. However,priceinstabilityforcropsintheregion,suchascupuaçu,made
theactivitylessappealingthaninvestingincattle,whichhavestablepricesanddemand. Furthermore,
cupuaçuisharvestedduringtherainyseason,whichcorrespondstoatimewhenroadconditionsare
themostproblematic. Agriculturalextensionagentsconfirmedthatallcropproductionduringthe
rainyseason,eventhatoffarmersengagedinbananaandcassava,hasexperiencedseriousproblems
duetothelackofoptionsforsales.Asaresultofthesefailures,intheshort-termmanysmallholders,even
thosewhoreceivedcreditforcropping,shiftedtheirlandusetopastureandbegantoinvestincattle.
Givenanunderstandingoftheseeconomicgainscoupledwiththeneedtoreducedeforestationin
theregion,i.e.,bytheinclusionofMarabáintheListofpriorityMunicipalities3,anumberofstrategies
to include smallholders in diversified initiatives have been developed by agronomists. However,
inadequate lot size was cited by extension agents and smallholders as being the main barrier to
theirinvolvementinsuchgreeneconomicactivities. Forinstance,aneconomicallyviableprojectfor
carbonsequestrationrequiresanareaofatleast1000hectares,whichexcludesthesmallholderswho
participatedinthisresearch,astheaveragepropertysizeis33hectares. Tobefeasible,smallholders
wouldneedtoformacooperative. Althoughnotimpossible,cooperativeformationhasproventobe
achallengeintheSPslocatedinthisregionandelsewhere. Anadditionalconstraintisthelong-term
planningtimehorizontoseeaprofit,sinceitwouldbeseveralyearsbeforethestandingforestgenerates
3 Marabáwasaddedtothelistofprioritymunicipalitiesinreductionofdeforestationanddegradationin2009throughMMA
DECREENo.102OF24MARCH2009.ThisdecreeprovidesalistofmunicipalitieslocatedintheAmazonbiome,where
priorityactionsfocusonprevention,monitoringandcontrolofillegaldeforestation.