Small farms and sustainable rural development for food security: The Brazilian experience

Abstract

In the past few years, Brazil has made significant progress in reducing hunger and food and nutrition insecurity. By the end of 2009 it had met the first United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing poverty and malnutrition by half, six years ahead of the 2015 deadline. Much of this progress has been achieved through innovative policies and initiatives championed by civil society organisations for over two decades. This paper reviews some of the most important policies and initiatives which are having a beneficial impact on sustainable rural development and food security. Focusing on conditions for small family farmers, the authors describe the main elements of these government programmes as well as relevant civil society initiatives, and the possible lessons to be learned from them. The paper concludes by discussing the challenges the country faces in maintaining recent advances in sustainable rural development and food security.

Keywords:

• Brazil
• food and agricultural policies
• food security
• small family farms
• sustainable rural development

1. Introduction

Over the past two decades, Brazil has made significant progress in reducing hunger and other manifestations of food and nutrition insecurity. By the end of 2009 it had met the first United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing poverty and malnutrition by half, six years ahead of the 2015 deadline (CAISAN, 2009). Between 1995 and 2008, over 12 million Brazilians moved out of poverty (Ituassu, 2010). The incidence of extreme poverty fell from 17.4% of the population in 2001 to less than 9% in 2008, an extraordinary 8.7% reduction (Barros, 2009). This was accompanied by rapid social progress in a number of other areas: infant mortality rates were halved from 55/1000 in 1996 to 24/1000 in 2007; the percentage of children under the age of five without adequate access to water declined from 39% in 1992 to 22% in 2008; and the percentage of children in the age group seven to 14 years who were not attending school fell from 12% in 1992 to 2% in 2008 (Saboia, 2008; Barros, 2009).

Much of this progress has been achieved through innovative policies which included aggressive stabilisation measures to control inflation since the 1990s, the increasing purchasing power of minimum wages since 2002, and the expansion of comprehensive social programmes since 2003.

The success of the Bolsa Familia (Family Grant) deserves special mention (Soares et al., 2007; Rocha, 2009). This highly targeted, conditional cash-transfer programme reached 12 million families in 2010, a quarter of the country's population. Although not enough to lift families out of poverty by itself, the Bolsa Familia has raised participants' incomes and reduced the severity of poverty (FAO, 2006; Jaccoud, 2006) and directly contributed to increasing food and nutrition security in the country, since as much as 87% of the transfer is spent on food (FAO, 2006; IBASE, 2008).

Comparable results have been seen with the establishment of the rural pension programme (Maluf & Burlandy, 2007). Established in 1988, this income transfer programme provides a monthly benefit equivalent to the minimum wage to all women over the age of 55 and all men over 69 in rural areas, irrespective of their past social security contributions. Research has revealed its positive impact on the living conditions of rural families, including their capacity to invest in agricultural activity, making this the best-performing policy for combating rural poverty in recent decades (Delgado & Castro, 2003).

In general, federal income transfer programmes have led to a reduction of almost 30% in the incidence of malnutrition (Monteiro et al., 2006), as they have a positive association with improved household food security (Segal-Correa et al., 2008). They have also been helping to reduce Brazil's notoriously high income inequality, as they are targeted precisely at the lowest income sectors of the population (Néri, 2006; Santos et al., 2009). Between 2001 and 2008 the annual growth in income for the poorest 10% of the population was 8.1%, compared to only 1.5% for the richest 10% (Barros, 2009). The Gini inequality index for Brazil declined from 0.580 in 1995 to 0.566 in 2001, and again to 0.528 in 2007 (Saboia, 2008).

Over the past two decades, Brazil has also experienced an extraordinary increase in agricultural production (Valdes et al., 2009; The Economist, 2010), particularly for global commodity markets. The country is the world's largest exporter of sugar, ethanol (from sugarcane), beef, coffee and orange juice, and the second-largest exporter (after the US) of soybeans and poultry meat. The growth of Brazil's agri-business sector is often seen as a result of public investment in research (through Embrapa, the Brazilian Corporation for Agricultural Research) and the expansion of cultivated areas. Large-scale, capital-intensive farming dominates the sector.

Although it is seen in some quarters as a ‘model’ for the world because of its relatively modest use of direct government crop subsidies (The Economist, 2010), the Brazilian agri-business sector has been criticised as environmentally unsustainable, particularly on account of deforestation in the centre-west and north of the country (in the Amazon region), and the high use of harmful chemical inputs (ANVISA, 2010; Tollefson, 2010). The sector has made little contribution to the reduction of poverty and improvements in food and nutrition security. It has made only modest contributions to rural employment (Schutter, 2009). So far, the export-oriented agri-business sector of Brazil can hardly be seen as a model of sustainable rural development for food security.

By contrast, an alternative model for sustainable rural development in Brazil is emerging from the family farming sector. Family farms are rural enterprises which depend mostly on the labour of the family owner. Results from the agrarian census of 2006 provide a picture of a dynamic sector which contributes significantly to rural employment and food security in the country (França et al., 2009; MDA, 2009; Mattos, 2010). According to the 2006 census, 84.4% of all rural enterprises in Brazil are family farms (MDA, 2009). Covering only 24.3% of all cultivated land, family farms are responsible for 38% of the agricultural value produced in the country (R$54 million or US$32 million), employing 74.4% (12.3 million people) of all workers in the agricultural sector. With an average farm size of 18.37 hectares (compared to an average size of 309.18 ha in the agri-business sector), family farms have been responsible for a significant share of national food production, in particular for the domestic market. These farms supply 87% of manioc, 70% of beans, 46% of corn, 38% of coffee, 34% of rice, 21% of wheat and 16% of soybeans – all staples in the Brazilian diet. They also make a significant contribution to the overall production of animal-derived food: 58% of milk, 50% of poultry, 59% of pork and 30% of cattle. Family farming in Brazil generates R$677/ha – 89% more than the average value generated by agri-business enterprises (R$358/ha).

This paper identifies some key elements of recent developments in Brazil, which are moving the country towards a more sustainable rural development, quite separate from the dominant global, agri-business model it also presents. The paper reviews some of the most important policies and initiatives that are supporting the family farm sector and contributing to its economic viability and to food security in the country. In the next section, we describe two important federal initiatives to support small family farms: the PRONAF and PAA programmes. Section 3 describes how a municipal government (in the city of Belo Horizonte) can support the small family farm sector. While the focus of discussion in Sections 2 and 3 is on government policies, in Section 4 we look at the role played by civil society in leading to and sustaining these policies. The paper concludes by discussing the challenges the country faces in maintaining recent advances in sustainable rural development and food security.

2. Federal policies: PRONAF and PAA

Throughout its history, Brazil's economy has been dominated by ‘big agriculture’, from sugarcane, cocoa and coffee plantations, to large soy and fruit production and extensive cattle operations. Small, family production has always been considered a marginal, and even dispensable, part of the agricultural economy. Until the 1990s, there was little recognition of the family farm sector's real and potential economic contribution. In fact, for most of the country, small rural producers were something to be dealt with as a ‘social problem’, given the widespread poverty among rural families, and their demands for agrarian reform and land settlements.

Views on the family agricultural sector started to change in the 1990s, due to extensive research by the National Institute for Colonisation and Agrarian Reform (INCRA)1 in collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Results from that study (INCRA/FAO, 2000) revealed that, far from being a marginal part of the country's economy, family farms contributed 38% of its overall agricultural value and employed over 70% of rural workers. This was confirmed in the 2006 census (MDA, 2009). Most significantly, the study showed the importance of the sector for supplying the domestic food market.

Following this revelation, an important political decision was taken – to establish the Ministry of Agrarian Development (MDA)2 in 1999. Distinct from the Ministry of Agriculture (which is concerned with policies and programmes related to the agri-business sector), MDA's mandate includes the promotion of rural sustainable development and support for family agriculture. This ministry is also responsible for agrarian reform and new rural settlements. Two of the most important programmes under its jurisdiction are the National Programme for Strengthening Family Agriculture (PRONAF),3 and the Food Acquisition Programme (PAA).4

PRONAF, created in 1996, was developed to provide subsidised agricultural credit, crop insurance and technical assistance to small farmers, including agrarian reform settlers. Some critics of this programme (Anjos et al., 2004) questioned its capacity (or even true intention) to support the poorest farmers or to promote rural development. Indeed, until 2004, the programme was heavily skewed towards farms in the relatively rich southern region of the country (Junqueira & Lima, 2008), where family farmers have always been better organised, better informed, and able to guarantee better collateral for credit offered under the programme. Since 2004, PRONAF has been integrated into Zero Hunger (Fome Zero), a federal strategy to combat hunger and food insecurity (Rocha, 2009), and its reach has been significantly expanded. The programme now targets the poorest regions of the country (north and northeast), and has included microcredit mechanisms to benefit lower income families (CAISAN, 2009). Other initiatives within PRONAF include specific incentives for food production (PRONAF Mais Alimentos) and environmental protection (PRONAF Sustentável). Close to two million families benefit from the programme.

While PRONAF is geared towards agricultural production by small farmers, PAA has been developed to support the commercialisation of this production. Initially funded and administered by the Ministry of Social Development and Fight against Hunger (MDS)5 as part of the Zero Hunger strategy, since 2006 PAA has been integrated into PRONAF. PAA promotes direct crop and milk purchases by the government for building food stocks (and regulating food prices) and to be used in government food programmes such as school meals, popular restaurants, community kitchens and food banks. The programme has also provided a stimulus for greater organisation of small family farmers into cooperatives and associations, as this is a requirement for participation in most of its components. Greater organisation has, in turn, facilitated credit for participating farmers and opened access to other (more distant) markets (Delgado et al., 2005). Over 118 000 producers participated in the programme in 2008 (CAISAN, 2009).

In 2009 the government scaled up the potential for PAA's reach by legislating that at least 30% of the funding for the national school meals programme had to be spent on purchasing food from family farms (FNDE, 2009). This has huge implications. The national school meals programme serves over 40 million children per day throughout Brazil and is administered in every municipality. Established in 1954, it is the oldest social assistance programme in Brazil and one of the largest, with a budget of over R$1.5 billion in 2006 (Rocha, 2009). This legislation has the potential to significantly boost local food production on family farms.

It should be noted that these programmes fit into a national framework for food and nutrition security, thereby connecting agriculture and nutrition. Favouring the production and distribution of fresh vegetables and fruit by family farmers, these programmes have increased the availability of healthy foods to vulnerable sectors of the population, such as children in the public school system. This is important because, although the prevalence of under-nutrition is decreasing, overweight and obesity have become significant health concerns in the country (as is also the case in other parts of the world). In 2009 the prevalence of overweight and obesity, respectively, was 34.8% and 16.6% for children aged five to nine, 20.5% and 4.9% for adolescents (aged 10 to 19), and 49.9% and 14.8% for adults (IBGE, 2010).

3. Urban policies and rural development: The case of Belo Horizonte

Brazil is a fully urbanised country, with over 85% of its population living in cities and smaller towns (World Bank, 2006). A major factor starting the process of accelerated urbanisation was the push for import-substitution industrialisation and ‘modernisation’ in the 1940s and 1950s. The resulting rural-urban migration trend was reinforced in the following decades by agricultural policies favouring high levels of mechanisation (Martine & McGranahan, 2010).

Over 50% of all urban dwellers in Brazil live in cities with a population of one million or more (Martine & McGranahan, 2010). Belo Horizonte, the capital of Minas Gerais State in the interior of the country, is one of those cities. With a population of over two million people, in 1993 the city launched a comprehensive set of programmes to reduce food insecurity (Rocha, 2001; Lappé & Lappé, 2002; Rocha & Aranha, 2003; Shein, 2007; Rocha & Lessa, 2009). Under the leadership of mayor Patrus Ananias of the left-leaning Workers' Party, Belo Horizonte became the first city in Brazil to develop policies and programmes on the premise of adequate food as a basic human right. In 2009, the city received the Future Policy Award from the World Future Council in recognition of its food security policies (World Future Council, 2009).

The administration of Belo Horizonte identified the market for fresh fruit and vegetables as a potential site for improving food security conditions for city residents and, at the same time, improving the lives of small rural producers. Fresh fruit and vegetables had been one of the least commercially developed markets in Brazil (Farina & Machado, 2000). Until recently, a large number of households produced fruit, and especially vegetables, for their own consumption. But the fast pace of urbanisation, combined with the lack of resources and tradition in urban agriculture, changed household self-reliance in fruit and vegetable consumption. Production of fruit and vegetables for the domestic market became dominated by small and medium-size farmers who have not traditionally been well-organised, and lacked the resources to market their products effectively. This situation was further aggravated by the relatively low demand for fruit and vegetables. Studies conducted in the late 1990s suggest that, on a regular basis, only 58% of Brazilians consumed fresh vegetables and only 44% consumed fruit (Farina & Machado, 2000:163).

Two important programmes in Belo Horizonte have improved urban consumers' access to fruit and vegetables while supporting the small family farmers who produce them. With the Abastecer programme, the city licenses sellers to set up stores in city-owned property. Under the licence agreement, private operators must sell 20 to 25 products at a price set by the city (20 to 50% below market prices). Prices of other items sold in these outlets are not regulated, allowing operators a small profit. Besides prices, the city also monitors the quality of the products and provides technical assistance and general information on product display, safe storage and handling. A mobile version of the programme, the Workers' Convoy, takes the lower cost products to marginalised areas of the city. In 2007, 27 sellers were operating under this programme (PBH, 2009).

The Straight from the Country programme aims to facilitate direct interactions between small rural producers and urban consumers. By eliminating the intermediaries that normally operate in bringing the products of small rural producers to urban markets, the programme hopes to increase incomes for small farmers. Rural producers selected through a public process are assigned fixed sale points throughout the city (often in conjunction with the Abastecer outlets). In 2008, 34 rural producers from eight different municipalities around Belo Horizonte were participating in the programme (PBH, 2009). They offered a variety of fresh leaf and root vegetables and fruit at lower prices than other outlets.

In 2008, the city also supported the operation of 49 conventional farmers' markets (with 89 sellers) and promoted seven organic farmers' markets benefiting eight small producers from four surrounding rural areas (PBH, 2009). As a consequence of such policies and programmes, Belo Horizonte became the only major Brazilian city in which the commercialisation of fresh fruit and vegetables by ‘alternative stores’ surpassed the commercialisation done through supermarkets (Farina & Machado, 2000:164). The city has also favoured purchasing food from local family farms for some of its other programmes, such as ‘Popular Restaurants’ (which serve over 20 000 meals per day), and the school meals programme (serving 40 million meals to 155 000 children per year).

Altogether, Belo Horizonte's food security programmes are having a significant impact on the lives of small farmers. While the administrations of large urban centres do not have jurisdiction over rural areas, they are important food buyers and they regulate, operate and facilitate food markets. In the context of high urbanisation and rural-urban migration, cities become major protagonists in fighting food insecurity. The steady migration of poor rural families into cities, swelling the favelas (shantytowns) and stretching urban resources to the limit, is frequently left to be dealt with at the point of destination by municipalities. Through its programmes, the city of Belo Horizonte is increasing food security for its population and at the same time helping small farmers to make a living while remaining in rural areas, decreasing the rural-urban migration.

4. The role of civil society

The role of organised civil society in the development of policies for sustainable rural development and food security has been central since the 1980s, when Brazil became a democracy again after years of military rule. Trade unions, the emergence of the Workers' Party, the Landless Movement (MST), and other broader social movements, all contributed to the democratisation process. The culmination of efforts by civil society in the area of food security came in February of 2010, when the Brazilian National Congress passed an amendment adding the Right to Food to the country's constitution. It is now the duty of the State to respect, protect and promote the right to food and provide conditions for the right to adequate food to be enjoyed by all Brazilians.

The addition of the right to food to the constitution followed the enactment of the National Law on Food and Nutrition Security (LOSAN) in 2006. Article 1 of LOSAN establishes the definitions, principles, guidelines, objectives and composition of the National System for Food and Nutrition Security (SISAN) through which the State, with the participation of organised civil society, will formulate and implement policies, plans, programmes and actions aimed at ensuring the human right to adequate food (Brazil National Congress, 2005). LOSAN has thus institutionalised the practice of including civil society in the process of policy making, as well as in programme implementation and monitoring in the area of food security in Brazil.

What follows is a select list of major developments in the food policy arena in which civil society has played a central role (CONSEA, 2009; Burlandy, 2011):

•	1986: During the First National Conference on Food and Nutrition, ‘nutrition’ was incorporated into the concept of ‘food security’. Since then, the term used in Brazil is ‘food and nutrition security’.
•	1993: The National Council for Food and Nutrition Security (CONSEA)6 was established as an institutional space for civil society to participate in the formulation, implementation and monitoring of public policies. It was intended to integrate the different government sectors (agriculture, health, education, environment) dealing with food and nutrition security (Burlandy, 2009).
•	1993–95: This was a period of sustained nation-wide civil society mobilisation around the popular ‘Campaign against hunger and misery, and for life’, led by the social activist Herbert ‘Betinho’ de Souza, who also worked for agrarian reform favouring land settlements for small family producers.
•	1994: The first National Conference on Food and Nutrition Security was held in Brasília, with close to 2000 participants.
•	1996: The official Brazilian document for the World Food Summit in Rome was prepared by a tripartite commission with representatives from government, civil society and the private sector. Many of the members of the official Brazilian delegation to the Summit were from civil society organisations.
•	1998: The Brazilian Forum on Food and Nutrition Security (FBSAN)7 was established as a national network of social organisations, academics and government personnel. Today, FBSAN comprises over 100 affiliated organisations.
•	1999: The Articulação do Semiárido (ASA), a network of over 700 organisations, was established with a proposal for a paradigm shift in addressing food production and sustainable livelihoods in the poorest, semi-arid region of the country. ASA's rainwater catchment cisterns have become a symbol of appropriate technology adapted to the local socioeconomic and natural environment.
•	2003: Under the newly-elected President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, CONSEA was re-established, playing an important role in the implementation of the Zero Hunger strategy. An advisory body to the president, CONSEA is composed of 54 members, two thirds from civil society and the private sector and one third from the federal government.

While CONSEA is one of the most important spaces for civil society participation in public policies at the federal level, many such councils exist at regional and local (municipal) levels, such as the ‘municipal councils for food and nutrition security’ (often responsible for overseeing the implementation of the PAA programme at the local level) and the ‘school meals councils’ (responsible for overseeing municipal compliance with the school meals legislation). At least half of the members of these bodies come from civil society organisations.

Civil society organisations continue to play a role in moving the political agenda towards sustainable rural development. In particular, the agro-ecology movement seems to be gaining momentum in the country, with at least two major national networks (Articulação Nacional de Agroecologia – ANA, and Associação Brasileira de Agroecologia – ABA) representing organisations working for greater environmental sustainability in agrarian practices. Through national conferences, seminars and workshops, publications (including an academic journal), agrarian fairs, and events to exchange best practices, these organisations promote ‘clean’ food production (minimum use of chemical inputs), seed and biodiversity preservation, water conservation, restoring and re-valuing local food cultures, and the establishment of better market conditions for producers following agro-ecology principles (ANA, 2010). The movement has also been debating gender relations in the rural areas of the country, emphasising the central role of women in agriculture, food and nutrition security and biodiversity preservation.

5. Lessons and challenges

It is difficult to say how much of the Brazilian experience over the past two decades can be presented as ‘lessons’ to be adopted or even adapted in other countries. For some, the idea of creating a separate ministry to look after sustainable rural development might be inspiring. Others may be more interested in particular individual programmes, such as the federal PAA or Belo Horizonte's Straight from the Country initiative. The aim of this paper was to identify key elements that are moving the country towards more sustainable rural development and greater food and nutrition security.

First, a striking characteristic of the democratic process in Brazil has been the significant presence of organised civil society in policy making, implementation and monitoring. Many authors have commented on the increased participation of civil society in governance throughout the world. In Brazil, however, this has reached unprecedented levels, with this participation being institutionalised through national and local councils. Food and nutrition security councils are institutionalised spaces for dialogue with policy makers, and civil society organisations in Brazil are taking full advantage of this.8 Through the councils, they have been promoting ‘intersectoriality’ – a more integrated perspective in public policy planning (integrating agriculture and health, and reinforcing environmentally sustainable food production), and healthy practices (strengthening the availability of healthy foods in schools and other social institutions).

Second, organised civil society practices are indeed informing the development of policies (designing new programmes such as the PAA, and redesigning old programmes using a food and nutrition security approach, e.g. the school meals programme), and even informing constitutional changes (the amendment introducing the right to food). While many countries have dynamic civil society organisations participating in developing alternative food systems, these organisations are not always successful in influencing policy. The authors believe that the progress in food and nutrition security in Brazil has been due to civil society's success in transmitting its concerns to decision makers at the policy level. For the past two decades in this country they have found responsive governments, particularly at the federal level but also at (many) local levels.

There are, however, still many challenges. After all, even with the improvements of the past two decades, close to 17 million Brazilians are still extremely poor, and the country continues to experience one of the highest levels of income inequality in the world. Many of the policies and programmes that have improved rural lives are not reaching the poorest of the poor. The indigenous population in the country, for example, experience an infant mortality rate that is 2.3 times higher than the national average. Over 50% of indigenous children and 32.7% of indigenous women present iron deficiency (CONSEA, 2010).

Another challenge is the one embedded in the new form of democratic participation through civil society organisations and policy councils. Effective participation requires information, training and education. While the councils provide the space for dialogue with policy makers, they also require skills and knowledge that many representatives of civil society organisations may not yet have. Marginalised groups often lack information about their basic rights and about the programmes which could be available to them. Many groups may also feel intimidated in the formal setting of councils, or they may fear losing the independence and credibility that enable them to make effective criticisms of government policy.

Finally, Brazil is far from securing a sustainable path for rural development. The power of forces opposing this should not be underestimated. As has already been said, Brazil's rural economy is dominated by ‘big agriculture’, a powerful agri-business sector, which so far has had little regard for environmental sustainability. Despite long-term campaigns, civil society organisations have not yet been successful in preventing land grabs for eucalyptus plantations and the creation of ‘green deserts’ (Acosta, 2011), or the encroachment of the soya frontier on the Amazon basin. Despite the growth of an agro-ecological movement, Brazilian agriculture continues to rely heavily on chemical inputs (‘agro-toxics’ as they are known in the country). Thus, while the family farm sector is moving towards more environment-friendly forms, sustainable rural development in Brazil must eventually also involve agri-business practices.

Changes in economic and political conditions may always affect the willingness and capability of governments to maintain a set of policies and programmes. There are thus no guarantees that the fiscal measures necessary to support the development and expansion of sustainable food and nutrition security initiatives will continue as in the recent past. However, there is currently no sign of a reduction in civil society mobilisation in this area in Brazil. Rather the reverse: at the fourth National Conference for Food and Nutrition Security in November 2011, for example, over 2000 people (made up of civil society and government representatives, invited guests and international observers) met to debate the priorities for policy action in coming years. And some of the gains achieved in the past two decades, such as the institutionalisation of councils, or the inclusion of the Right to Food in the constitution, will not be easily reversed.

Notes

¹Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária.

²Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário.

³Programa Nacional de Fortalecimento da Agricultura Familiar.

⁴Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos.

⁵Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social e Combate à Fome.

⁶Conselho Nacional de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional.

⁷Fórum Brasileiro de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional.

⁸Some notable exceptions must be cited. The Landless Movement (MST) has often refused to participate in councils. Fearing ‘cooptation’, the MST has chosen to remain outside institutionalised spaces of policy debate and development such as the food and nutrition councils. It has preferred to continue making its contributions as a critic of the government.