Backgrounder Part I: Land Reform in Brazil
February 03, 2003
In January of 2001, President Fernando Henrique Cardoso announced that land concentration in Brazil had diminished and that a truly democratic, peaceful, and productive revolution had begun in the countryside. Even if the President’s statistics were correct, the number of settlers is less than the number of workers that abandoned their plots in search of better living conditions.
| Manuel Domingos |
|
| Federal University of Ceara |
|
MAY, 2002
PART ONE: Agrarian reform in Brazil
Manuel Domingos[1]
1. Land concentration persists
In January of 2001, President Fernando Henrique Cardoso announced that land concentration in Brazil had diminished and that a truly democratic, peaceful, and productive revolution had begun in the countryside. Between 1995 and 2000, his government supposedly settled 482,000 families (nearly 2.5 million people). During this period, he said 18 million hectares have passed from the hands of large landowners to small property owners. From his perspective, this was the “largest land reform program in the world.”
Diverse entities, experts, and members of parliament, and supporters of agrarian reform, contradicted these statistics. In fact, to arrive at these numbers the government not only had to count old land re-distributions as new ones, but reinvent a common practice from the time of the military dictatorship: counting formal recognition of land title as redistribution.
Even if the President’s statistics were correct, the number of settlers is less than the number of workers that abandoned their plots in search of better living conditions. According to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) between 1995 and 1999, nearly 4.2 million people left rural areas. Furthermore, it is indisputable that 54% of Brazilian agricultural establishments report negative or zero income in the long-term.[2]
Official statistics reveal a persistent concentration of land. According to the Institute for Colonization and Land Reform (INCRA) between 1992 and 1998, the area occupied by estates larger than 2.,000 hectares grew 56 million hectares—an area three times the rate government claims to have redistributed during six years. During the same period, the area controlled by 10% of the largest landholders grew from 77.,1% to 78,.6% of the total area. According to Hoffman (1998), the Gini coefficient, based on official data, jumped from 0,.831 to 0,.843 (table 1).[3]
Reflecting the uneven distribution of property in Brazil and the vigor of the movement to democratize land, agrarian conflicts have increased. According to the Comissão Pastoral da Terra (CPT), between 1992 and 1994 the annual average was 367 incidents, involving 214, 653 people. Between 1995 and 1999, this average grew to 667 conflicts and 508,507 people involved. On the other hand, there was a 5% reduction in the number of killings related to land conflicts. This is not to say that repression necessarily decreased, but that the coercive means may have changed.
The Landless Movement (MST) reports that in 2000 the number of displaced, illegal imprisonment, and trumped trials grew, suggesting that large property owners—without giving up the use of violence—have become more dependent on the intervention of the State. In that same year, eleven of the fourteen workers killed were members of MST.
2. The government vis-à-vis the rural world
The optimism of the Brazilian government represents a systematic attempt at propaganda to disguise its discredited image. Accused of despising the rural economy and in particular rural workers, the President adopted new intervention programs based on World Bank policies. These programs integrated the so-called “market- assisted agrarian reform,” part of a larger project: the construction of a “new rural world.”
The stated objective of the Bank is to give attention to the negative social consequences of unilateral and continuous economic opening of Brazilian agriculture to international markets, along with internally recessive measures. BIRD recognizes that in the first decade of economic liberalization (1986-1996), the number of people in Latin America and the Caribbean earning less than $1/day grew from 59 million to 84 million. In the countryside, the number of people classified as extremely poor grew from 45.8% to 52.2% of total rural population, constituting an increase of 10 million people.[4]
The political orientation of the Brazilian government led the country to abandon its tradition of being a larger exporter of agricultural products and to become a large importer of food. Despite the growth of agricultural output, the value of production fell from R$ 78,.3 billion in 1994, to R$72,.4 billion in 1999, according to the National Confederation of Agriculture (CNA). These statistics help explain why the amount of land under cultivation fell by 200 million hectares in the last decade. The social effects of these agricultural policies are evidenced in the necessity of distributing “basic grains” to more than a million families in rural areas.
The “new rural world” is an expression utilized to describe these transformations in the Brazilian agricultural reality as much as a paradigm to be followed. These changes are based on the introduction of technology, the emergence of new economic activities in rural areas, and the rise of new social configurations. Technical progress, which has caused gains in productivity, has given rise to an “excess” labor. As such, rural workers families have to employ part-time in non-agricultural activities to supplement their income.
As in developed countries, large and efficient agricultural firms, and the growth of leisure areas and weekend homes of city dwellers have transformed the Brazilian countryside. In the determination of rural spaceAlong with the government’s land redistribution program has come the decline of traditional , completely agricultural activities. have been losing relative importance. According to one supporter of these ideas, agrarian reform no longer needs to “exhibit an exclusively agricultural character.”[5]
It deserves note that the technological progress observed in Brazilian agriculture was mostly centralized in large businesses. The absorption of technology demonstrates the profound dichotomy between modern and traditional agriculture, where subsistence activities still persist. In 1995, landholdings with less than 20 hectares represented nearly 70% of total establishments, but had only 18.9% of tractors used in agriculture. This discrepancy is most evident in the Northeast region, which has a disproportionate number of poor and the highest percentage of agricultural workers.
On the other hand, the diversification of agricultural activities has been concentrated in specific areas and has not provided solid work opportunities in the countryside, where poverty indices remain evident. Between 1990 and 1997, the portion of poor people living in rural areas increased from 39.2% to 58.3% of total population.[6]
Concluding that the “new rural world” was indeed taking shape in Brazil, the government created a National Program of Assistance to Family Farms (PRONAF), dedicated in theory to making producers more efficient and likely to survive market competition.
Later, PRONAF incorporated the Special Credit Program for Agrarian Reform (PROCERA). In a highly criticized move, the government defined “family farms” to include settlers along with modern agricultural entrepreneurs. Settlers can be distinguished from modern farmers by the quantity of capital and technology employed. The consolidation of settlements would occur when these differences disappeared. As a consequence, small producers and large-scale commercial farmers end up fighting over the same resources.
The adoption of PRONAF was based on the idea that confronting the universal tendency of reduced profit margins in agriculture and the emergence of agribusiness would require a combination of improved efficiency and economies of scale. In the case of grain production, due to international competition only large and medium producers would have a chance at survival.
As for the subsistence producers, their perspectives have to be conditioned to integrate into increasingly sophisticated, consumer-driven markets. In other words, they would have to become brand name farmers. In this sense, the competitiveness of small producers would depend on their capacity to absorb new productive technologies and modes of organization.
PRONAF’s dedication to improving production ignored the serious problems posed by commercialization in the context of economic depression. With the costs of production rising and commercial prices falling, this program led many families to abandon the countryside. Despite its vigorous denial, it remains an important instrument of Brazilian government in the making of a “new rural world.”
3. “Market-assisted agrarian reform”
The fundaments fundamentals that led to the creation of PRONAF also drove the intervention of the Brazilian Sstate into land markets. This intervention presented as a novelty the so-called “market-assisted agrarian reform” - the stimulation of sale and purchase of land at the expense of latifundios’ expropriation for social interests, as outlined in the Brazilian Constitution. To justify “market-assisted agrarian reform,” the government argued that land expropriation and redistribution often takes a long time, allows for the overestimation of properties indemnities, and requires high costs for settlement.
Not withstanding, these difficulties are the result of the government’s lack of political will. For obvious reasons, it is State’s responsibility to inhibit corrupt practices. The sluggishness of expropriation processes can also be blamed on bureaucratic procedures of the entities in charge and, nearly always, in their lack of interest in the democratization of property. In respect to the high costs of settlement, the same government reveled that the costs had been significantly reduced: in 1995, settlement costs per family were as high as R$19.412; in 2000, they had fallen to only R$9.094.
Likewise, the implementation of “market-assisted agrarian reform” can only be understood as the extension of neo-liberal concepts introduced by BIRD. The intention of the Bank was to test the efficiency of these policies for politically unstable countries like South Africa and Colombia. Brazil was chosen as a site for this experiment because of the intensity of the land occupations and the radicalization of the conflicts, which threatened private property and structural adjustment. The program also represented a confrontation for the MST’s strategies that in many ways had forced the government to adopt legal measures to settle landless workers. For the World Bank, a successful experience in Brazil was viewed as an essential component of disseminating the model of “market-assisted agrarian reform” to other countries because of the pitiful results of the program in Colombia.[7]
The first attempt to implement the model proposed by the World Bank was the “Pilot Project at Agrarian Reform and Poverty Alleviation,” based in Ceará, known as “Reforma Agrária Solidária” (Agrarian Reform and Solidarity). Popularized as “Cédula da Terra,”, in 1997, the program was expanded to other Northeastern states (Bahia, Minas Gerais, Pernambuco, and Maranhão).
This program adopted as its guiding principle the rejection of “paternalistic actions by the state”—giving access to land through norms of supply and demand with financial conditions that should provide beneficiaries with “sustainable” gains and improve their quality of life. The government intended that the beneficiaries, despite coming from “poor” and “marginalized” groups, could be “social actors of the process” and not simply receivers of Sstate patronage. To better defend their interests, they should be “self-selected” and organized in associations. Potential beneficiaries would have to mobilize themselves to participate in the program.
The most important objectives of this program, according to Raul Juggmann, Minister of Agrarian Development, were the allocation of new resources to land reform, and the elimination of bureaucratic inertia, common in the expropriation and redistribution processes. To justify the program, the minister argued among other reasons for the need to shed the ideological reputation of agrarian reform, “pacify” the countryside through direct negotiation between the landless and large property owners, and contain public spending.
The “Cédula da Terra” program, which presented itself as a “new model of agrarian reform,” was implemented with unusual speed for a government intervention directed at rural areas. Between 1997 and 2000, $150 million were was made available, $90 million of which were was borrowed from the World Bank. The program financed the settlement of 15 thousand families.
This experience resulted in similar problems to the ones it aimed to avoid: execution that did not meet aims, fraud on the part of expert land reports, overvaluation of property, and miscommunication with beneficiaries about their benefits and responsibilities...[8]
Nevertheless, before the program had even been concluded the government sent to the National Congress a legislation to create the “Land Bank,” which with a few modifications amplified the previous experiment. With the approval of the new project by the Brazilian Parliament in 1999, the executive took command of the budgeted funds and solicited another loan from the World Bank.
The “Land Bank” was supposed to finance the acquisition of land and basic infrastructure for the landless and those with insufficient land. The beneficiaries should have at least five years of practical experience in agricultural activities. The maximum loan was set at R$40 million per family, to be repaid over 20 years, after a 3-year free period, and an interest rate between 6 and 10% depending on the quantity of the loan.
The serious concerns raised about the “Land Bank” by landless workers and small producers interest organizations made it difficult for BIRD to give support. These groups considered this proposal a return to the past that benefited the wealthy landowners and failure to take into consideration the difficult problems of the countryside. In 2000, Aas a result of these criticisms, in 2000 the project “Property Credit and Struggle against Rural Poverty” (CFCP) was created.
This program, which has now been expanded to much of Brazil, preserved many of the intentions of the “Cedula da Terra” and maintained most of the same financial policies, but set the loan ceiling at R$15.000,00 and the interest rate at 6% per year, and determined the alienation of the allocated property involved. Also, CFCP established the following criteria for beneficiaries: a) participation in a legally recognized association, b) family income less than R$ 4,300 per year, c) no previous benefits from an agrarian reform program, d) no public employees, and f) contribution of 10% of the cost of community investment.
The determination of the Brazilian government in the formulation of CFCP, the funding left available for the program (R$ 200 million only for 2001), the expansion of the area of intervention and the budget cuts for expropriation of latifundios and settlements leaves little doubt about its intention to substitute already available instruments to alleviate social pressures resulting from land concentration for “market-assisted agrarian reform.” This proposal represents the alternative of the powerful for land access through legal expropriation due to social interests. As the official statistics demonstrate, between 1998 and 2000, land redistribution fell from 2,2 million hectares to 474 thousand and settlement capacity from 66 thousand families to 15 thousand (table 2).
4. Concerns on “market-assisted agrarian reform”
The numerous criticisms of “market-assisted agrarian reform” can be summarized in the following manner:
-The market tendency is to concentrate rural property, rather than distribute it. The process of “modernization” in Brazilian agriculture has preserved and accentuated the historic land concentration. Despite the availability of arable land, nearly 4.5 million families remain landless.
-Land negotiation is carried out in a context of inequality. Unlike large rural owners, the landless live in extreme poverty. To gain access to land, potential beneficiaries are always willing to accept inflated prices and high levels of debt. In this context, it is impossible to have the “fair negotiation between the parties” envisioned by supporters of “market-assisted agrarian reform.”
-The self-selection process intended by program organizers never occurred. In the selection committees, composed of rural workers and community leaders, politicians participated. Sometimes the mayor mediates lists of potential beneficiaries. In rural areas, being more difficult to distinguish between individual and collective interests, “clientelism” tends to prevail. As a result, it becomes problematic to avoid political intervention in the selection of beneficiaries in a program to buy land.
-The market dynamic stimulated through government credits to purchase land benefit large rural owners by giving value to their unproductive properties. There are cases of landholders that took advantage of the program by organizing rural workers’ associations to buy land only for their own favor. The democratization of rural property requires penalties to those who do not accomplish its social function.
-Under the rubric of emancipating beneficiaries, the state merely uses the dolling out of land as a means of retreating from its responsibility to vitalize settlers economically and turn them into independent producers. Without technical assistance and favorable agriculture policies, it is extremely difficult for beneficiaries to pay back their debts. As life expectancy in the countryside is so low, it seems unlikely that many of them will be able to pass their land on to their children as inheritance.
-By passing the responsibility to democratize land to the market, political leaders intend to relieve the Sstate of its essential legal responsibilities as outlined in the Brazilian constitution: the distribution of land for social interests.
-The implementation of “of “market-assisted agrarian reform” was accompanied by countless initiatives to discredit the landless movement, which was already gaining widespread success in distributing land. Among these measures, a special unit of the Federal Police was created which specialized in combating “land invasions,” monitoring of encampments was prohibited, and public resources were withheld from entities involved in land occupations.
“Market-assisted agrarian reform” is really just a means of disguising state aide for large property owners, permitting them to capitalize on their unproductive lands and receive hard cash.
In summary, the proposal of “market based agrarian reform” implemented by Cardoso’s government grants landless workers inadequate access to land and often denies them access all together. As much as it is true that Brazilian agriculture has undergone grand transformations in recent years, it has also not lost its most significant traits—latifundios, and market directed mono-agriculture and export.
5. Proposals for agrarian reform
The movements, organizations, and personalities involved in the struggle for agrarian reform in Brazil have formulated countless proposals linked to profound changes in social and political life. These proposals do not represent an executive program for the multiple and complex changes necessary in the economy and society. Obviously, this is a job for a the public administration.
The various groups that oppose the government hold opinions in common. Not withstanding their differences, organizations like MST, CPT, CONTAG (Trade Unions National Confederation), ABRA (Brazilian Agrarian Reform Association), and others agree on many relevant propositions to be jointly pursued. Events like the National Forum for Agrarian Reform and Justice in the Countryside helps to consolidate this position.
Among the social forces that fight for agrarian reform, MST has distinguished itself the most. Its particular strategies to mobilize the landless, occupy rural properties, organize settlements in solidarity and struggle, and to communicate ideas deserve a special attention. The following proposals reflect, mainly, the perspective of MST, but they are also accepted by the variety of supporters of agrarian reform.
The Goal of Agrarian Reform
Agrarian reform should guarantee access to quality land. It constitutes the most viable and democratic means of assuring work and food to the Brazilian people. At the same time, agrarian reform is the best way to redistribute income, eliminate poverty, and democratize political relationships in rural areas. Agrarian reform will help consolidate the rights of citizens.
Access to property
Legal limits should be placed on the expansion of property, penalties imposed for unproductive large landholdings, and efforts made to prevent land speculation. The Rural Land Tax should be applied. The resources gained from applying land taxation would be sufficient to guarantee ample settlement programs. Agrarian reform should not be based on the practice of buying and selling land. Public land and state business should be recorded and monitored by surveys. The development of alternative systems of property, like community ownership, is essential.
Organization of Property
Brazilian agriculture should be based on family production and supported by subsidies to guarantee prices and financing for costs of production. Family production requires a division of labor that incorporates agro-industrial activities. Cooperative relations should be conceived to meet the reality of each settlement and community of producers. While heeding to the division of labor, the socialization of benefits should be the primary objective. In the division of labor, the definition of “rural worker” should be expanded to include all work that contributes directly to production and benefits the entire community. The establishment of public services, research, and technical assistance will play an essential role in this project.
Distribution of Production
The government should regulate prices for basic foodstuffs for people with low income. It is essential that “food sovereignty” and protection from foreign competition be established. The government should formulate policies to store and commercialize food.
Environment
The current mode of agricultural production, which is based on agro-industrial methods, unnecessarily degrades the environment. Agrarian reform should reinforce environmental protection, allowing for the rational use of land, adequate management of wildlife, and the appropriate use of technology for different ecosystems. The monitoring of water sources is as essential as guaranteeing equal access to them. Providing technical assistance to family farmers in regard to environmental issues will be essential to helping them become economically viable. Brazil needs environmental legislation that takes into account the needs of small producers.
Conditions for Agrarian Reform
Agrarian reform needs to be instituted in the context of a new development model for the country—one directed at ensuring national sovereignty and welfare. A successful agrarian reform program would represent the defeat of a political and economic model that privileges agro-industrial concepts and leads to technological dependence. The adoption of an alternative development model represents a change in the nature of power in Brazil.
The study of the following topics is necessary to advance agrarian reform:
The power of big private business
The capacity of agricultural bourgeoisie to control inputs and the distribution of production; the links of this bourgeoisie with the financial system.; the; the influence that this bourgeoisie exerts over means of communication, politics, and various administrative circles of the Brazilian state.
Technical Progress
Assistance in applying new technologies (motorization, use of fertilizer, soil management, work organization...) to Brazilian agriculture, with particular attention to small producers; the knowledge and diffusion of organic agriculture.
Property Dynamics
What the official statistics can reveal/hide about the concentration/distribution of property; the identification of the largest landowners: public and private, personal and commercial, national and foreign; the different regional configurations of property; studies documenting “market based agrarian reform.”
Rural Employment
The transformation of agricultural social classes; the offering of work opportunities in proportion to modern undertakings, salaries, and type of contract; the completion of worker’s legislation; the diversification of productive activities; the emergence of agro-industries; migrant workers and demographic changes.
The Expansion of Agricultural Land
The monitoring of occupations of the Savannah and the Amazon; the expansion of grain and cattle areas; the preservation of indigenous reserves and historically black communities.
The vitalization of settlements
The study of the various settlement experiences: organization of production, environmental conservation, distribution of production, solidarity, quality of life, local repercussions; alternatives in semiarid regions and other areas of intense occupation.
Land Conflicts
Changes in conflict dynamics: the actors involved, types of violence, the involvement of private and public security forces; the functioning of courts.
The role of the World Bank
The performance of the World Bank in the Brazilian agricultural economy over the past few decades, in particular its concepts of poverty and development.
='margin-left:.2in;border-collapse:collapse;border:none'>
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
Gini Coefficient
Region ='font-size:9.0pt'> 1992
1998
|
border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
North
|
border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
='font-size:9.0pt'>0,849
|
border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
='font-size:9.0pt'>0,851
|
border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
Northeast
|
border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
='font-size:9.0pt'>0,792
|
border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
='font-size:9.0pt'>0,811
|
border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
Southeast
|
border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
='font-size:9.0pt'>0,749
|
border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
='font-size:9.0pt'>0,757
|
border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
South
|
border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
='font-size:9.0pt'>0,705
|
border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
='font-size:9.0pt'>0,712
|
border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
Center-Ouest
|
border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
='font-size:9.0pt'>0,811
|
border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
='font-size:9.0pt'>0,810
|
border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
Brazil ='font-size:9.0pt'>
|
border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
='font-size:9.0pt'>0,831
|
border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
='font-size:9.0pt'>0,843
|
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'>
Sources: IBGE e
INCRA Elaboration : Rodolfo Hoffmann.
|
15.486
Source: INCRA Elaboration: adviser of Workers Party
*pré-amazônia maranhense ; **Marabá ; ***Médio São Francisco ; ****Entorno/DF
[1] Manuel Domingos has a Phd in History at the University of Sorbonne (France), and is a professor at the Department of Social Science and Philosophy at the Federal University of Ceara.
[2] ALVES, Elisue et alii, O Empobrecimento da agricultura brasileira, Revista de Política Agrícola, Ministry of Agriculture, n. 03, Brasília, 1999.
[3] HOFFMAN, Rodolfo, A Estrutura Fundiária do Brasil de Acordo com o Cadastro do INCRA: 1967-1998, INCRA/UNICAMP, 1998.
[4] Núcleo Agrário da Bancada do PT na Câmara dos Deputados, Reflexões sobre a agrocultura e a reforma agrária no contexto de um projeto democrático, popular e soberano para o Brasil, Brasília, 31.08.2001.
[5] SILVA, José Graziano da, Ainda precisamos de reforma agrária no Brasil?, in Ciência Hoje, vol. 27, n. 170, SBPC, São Paolo, abril de 2001.
[6] LEMOS, José de Jesus Sousa—Mapa da Pobreza no Brasil: uma contrbuição para construir uma uma pauta de agenda de desenvolvimento ecônomico sustentável para o país. Fortaleza, setembro de 1999.
[7] Conferência de Agricultura do Banco Mundial, Reforma agrária pelo mercado, 1995.
[8] UNICAMP/USP/NEAD, Programa Cédula da Terra—Relatório de Avaliação Preliminar, 2000.
###
|
|
|
