|
|
Introduction Since colonial explorers first sought to transform the Amazon into an agricultural landscape, agriculture in the Amazon has signified a means for taming the “wild” rainforest and benefiting human society. Alfred Russell Wallace, an English naturalist that studied in the Amazon from 1849-52, believed that in the Amazon “nature and the climate are nowhere more favorable to the labourer, and I fearlessly assert that here the ‘primeval’ forest can be converted into rich pasture and meadow land, into cultivated fields, gardens and orchards, containing every variety of produce, with half the labour…” (Wallace 1853: 335 in de Onis 1992: 24). The belief that the Amazon’s lush greenery indicated fertile soils suitable for commercial agriculture carried weight throughout the agricultural development plans of the 1960s-1980s. Agrarian reform programs and the development of the cattle industry during this period sought to ease population pressures in northeastern and southern Brazil and catalyze economic growth. Decades later, scientists, policymakers and regional planners question the suitability of this agricultural development model for the Amazon due to its social and environmental consequences (e.g., rural migration, abandonment of settlement plots, soil erosion and deforestation). Despite the lessons learned, a similar agricultural model based on the export of soybeans is being implemented in the Santarém region. The economic and scientific “success” of soybean production in Brazil’s cerrado is in part responsible for the push to expand soybean production to the Amazon. Fearnside (2001: 27) explains that the political discourse argues that “a few decades ago no one believed that the cerrado was good for anything, and now it is a great producer of soybeans. The next line in such rhetoric normally goes, ‘If only we believe in Amazonia…’” Just as previous agricultural development models were believed to save the Amazon from social and economic decay, soybeans are being taunted as the means for fast-track economic development. Advocates stress that soybean production will bring employment opportunities, improve infrastructure, diminish rural migration, and establish a sustainable economic path for the Amazon. In this paper, I will look at the potential social and economic benefits proffered by the political-economic discourse for the Santarém region. In doing so, I will demonstrate the political-economic structures that are encouraging the expansion of soy into the Amazon, namely politically connected agro-businesses from central-southern Brazil, the government-sponsored infrastructural development program Avança Brasil, and the global soybean market. This paper will illustrate how Avança Brasil and the political-economic strength of Brazil’s agro-industry reflects Brazil’s development history of supporting large-scale economic activities, particularly agro-industrial enterprises that benefit large-landholders and national development objectives. In addition, I will explore the future outlook of the soybean agricultural model for the Santarém region with respect to sustaining rural livelihoods, regional food security, and generating regional economic opportunities. Lastly, I will briefly discuss how an export-oriented agricultural model can co-exist with smallholder agricultural production. Agricultural Development in the Amazon: 1960s-1980s Amazonian agricultural systems are a myriad of commercial and subsistence practices that involve cash crops and fruit trees, homegardens, swidden agriculture, and multi-purpose trees and shrubs. Development programs from 1960-1980 introduced an agricultural model to the Amazon that contrasted with the existing agricultural systems. They aimed to modernize and commercialize agriculture in the region in order to economically and socially integrate the Amazon with Brazil. Several government programs systematically carried out the agricultural development plan including Operation Amazonia, the National Integration Program, and Program of Agricultural, Livestock, and Mineral Poles in Amazonia (POLOAMAZONIA), which directed agricultural programs from two levels-smallholder land settlement and large-scale cattle ranching (Mahar 1989) . Moran (1976) explains that the entire colonization process was overseen by National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA): advertising, the application process, transportation to settlement areas, land tenure, and supplying household goods and construction materials. Though it was reported that the application procedure was not consistent for each candidate (e.g., some were expected to be literate while others were not), the deliberate application process sought a particular “settler” profile (Ibid). As a result, the land settlement process was the government’s means for controlling who would be settled, where settlement would occur, and how Amazonia would be occupied. Mahar (1989: 11) supports this claim with respect to Operation Amazonia, which he asserts, “ensur[ed] national sovereignty by establishing self-sustaining settlements in frontier regions”. In this respect, colonists (colonos) marked the Amazon as Brazilian property. As part of a development scheme, colonos represented progress and modernization. Other social groups such as caboclos were ignored entirely by government programs because they represented pre-modern, colonial times. Nugent (1993: 7) explains that in order to build a credible story for modern development in the Amazon, “the absence of ‘viable’ societies” in the Amazon needed to be portrayed. The colonos were to replace “pre-modern” populations as they were “unsightly obstacles to a vision of progress” (Nugent 1993: 7). Consequently, existing social groups’ knowledge about agriculture was ignored. Moran (1976: 30) notes that government administrators regarded caboclos as “ignorant of agriculture…which perhaps explain why few newcomers sought the caboclo for advice.” Thus, colonists relied on government institutions for agricultural knowledge and tools, which were in keeping with the development policies’ commercial agricultural objectives (e.g., high-yielding seed varieties) (Moran 1976: 56). (However, overtime those who remained in the agricultural sector integrated caboclo and indigenous agricultural techniques (Ibid). Need?) In addition to contributing to the government’s national integration plan, the development agenda for the Amazon supported large-scale economic activities such as cattle-ranching and mining to boost economic growth. Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI) policies in the post-World War II years until 1964 set the foundation for a development model and power structure that favored industrial agribusiness (Hecht 1982) and encouraged a similar process for agricultural development in the Amazon. Support for large-scale agricultural enterprises came in the form of infrastructural development (e.g., road building) and economic incentives including subsidies for landownership and agricultural inputs. The primary agri-business to receive support in the Amazon was cattle ranches, an industry that was controlled by a handful of families with political and economic power in the Amazon (Hecht 1982). The increased economic support for cattle ranching through programs like POLOAMAZONIA, strengthened cattle ranchers’ political-economic power in the region. At the same time, land settlement schemes, systematically relocated a poor class to the Amazon with no regional political or economic power. As a result, the two-tiered agricultural development programs established a politically and economically divided agrarian sector in the Amazon. Soybean Development in Brazil While cattle ranching received government assistance in the Amazon, soy farming was beginning to change the cerrado landscape (savannah) of central-southern Brazil. Support for soy farms came in the form of funds for land acquisition and subsidies and credit for tractors and inputs (draft Hecht 2001). The assistance provided for soybean production initiated a trend toward larger farm sizes and the expulsion of smallholders. From 1965-1980, soybean farms displaced 2.5 million smallholders in the state of Parana alone (Ibid). Overall, central-southern Brazil witnessed a decrease in the number of smallholdings and a 12.3 percent increase in 1,000-10,000 hectare farms and a 1.5 percent increase of 10,000 hectare farms (Ibid). Hecht (Ibid) notes that this trend in farm size and expulsions was due to smallholders’ inability to compete with the economies of scale favored by soy farms. In the 80s and 90s, these trends continued as soy farms moved northward seeking better soils and increasing family landholdings (Ibid). The development agenda from 1960-1980 saw the expansion of large-scale agri-business throughout Brazil. In central-southern Brazil, the agro-industrial model resulted in the displacement of millions of smallholders practicing combinations of traditional and commercial agriculture. While central-southern Brazil witnessed a decrease in smallholder farming and the diversity of agricultural practices, the Amazon region increased its number of smallholders as many of the displaced migrated to the Amazon on their own or under INCRA settlement programs (Ibid). As noted above, the flux of smallholders to the region and the growing political-economic strength of cattle ranchers generated disparate landholdings and political-economic power in the region.
|
