Advertisement

Small-Scale Farmers and the Challenges of Environmental Conservation and Rural Development: Case Studies from the State of São Paulo and the Amazon Region

  • Célia FutemmaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Human-Environment Interactions book series (HUEN, volume 1)

Abstract

In the past 10 years, small-scale farmers have been the target of both environmental and rural development concerns at national, state, and municipal levels in Brazil. At the federal level, public policies aim at enhancing family-based farming systems (agricultura familiar) through increasing their participation in the market and guaranteeing their food security. Simultaneously, environmental policies restrict small-scale farmers from using 100% of their property, since they have to conserve a minimum of forest area—forest reserve—as well as a gallery forest. Some government officials and scholars argue that small-scale farmers are not able to follow such environmental rules and should be forgiven, because of the small size of their properties, which limit their choices in production. The question is, Considering government programs for rural development and environmental conservation, are small-scale farmers who live inside or surrounding protected areas able to increase their participation in the market, produce for their livelihoods, and meet environmental conservation rules? To address this question, decisions and activities of small-scale farmers in the state of São Paulo and the Amazon region will be analyzed.

Keywords

Amazon Region Rural Settlement National Forest Perennial Crop Gallery Forest 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. ABC Digital. (2009). Projeto que institui Código Ambiental estará no Congresso em maio. http://floripamanha.org/2009/03/projeto-que-institui-codigo-ambiental-estara-no-congresso-em-maio/. Accessed 10 Feb 2010.
  2. Agência Estado. (2009). Lei ambiental causa conflito entre Santa Catarina e Ministro Carlos Minc. http://www.agroin.com.br/novo/?p=view&id=203 . Accessed 10 Feb 2010.
  3. Agência O Globo. (2009). Minc critica lei de Santa Catarina que reduziu mata ciliar. 03/04/2009. http://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/vidaecidadania/conteudo.phtml?id=873731. Accessed 10 Feb 2010.
  4. Almeida, M., & Cunha, M. (2000). Populações Tradicionais e Conservação Ambiental. In A. Veríssimo, A. Moreira, D. Sawyer, I. dos Santos, e L.P. Pinto (Orgs.), Biodiversidade na Amazônia Brasileira: Avaliação e Ações Prioritárias para a Conservação, Uso Sustentável e Repartição de Benefícios (pp. 184–193). São Paulo: ISA e Estação Liberdade.Google Scholar
  5. Alston, L. J., Libecap, G. D., & Mueller, B. (1999). Title, conflict, and land use: The development of property rights and land reform on the Brazilian frontiers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  6. Altieri, M. A. (1999). The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 74(1–3), 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Altieri, M. A., Anderson, M. K., & Merrick, L. C. (1987). Peasant agriculture and the conservation of crop and wild plant resources. Conservation Biology, 1(1), 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benatti, J. H. (2001). Presença humana em unidade de conservação: um impasse científico, jurídico ou político? In J. P. Capobianco, A. Veríssimo, A. Moreira, D. Sawyer, I. Santos, & L. P. Pinto (Orgs.), Biodiversidade na Amazônia (pp. 299–305). São Paulo: Editora Estação Liberdade/Instituto Socioambiental-ISA.Google Scholar
  9. Beni, M. C. (2002). Conceituando turismo rural, agroturismo, turismo ecológico e ecoturismo. In M. Barreto & E. Tamanini (Eds.), Redescobrindo a ecologia do turismo (pp. 31–34). Caxias do Sul: EDUCS.Google Scholar
  10. Brondízio, E., Cak, A., Caldas, M. M., Mena, C., Bilsborrow, R., Futemma, C., Moran, E., Ludewigs, T., & Batistella, M. (2009). Small farmers and deforestation in Amazonia. In M. Keller, M. Bustamante, J. Gash, & P. Silva Dias (Eds.), Amazonia and global change (1st ed., Vol. 186, pp. 117–147). Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doolittle, A. A. (2010). Stories and maps, images and archives: Multimethod approach to political ecology of native property rights and natural resource management in Sabah, Malaysia. Environmental Management, 45, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dubois, J. (1976). Silviculture preliminary forest management guidelines for the national Forest of the Tapajós. FAO/FO/BRA-71-545, Projeto de Desenvolvimento e Pesquisa Florestal. Belém: Região Norte Region.Google Scholar
  13. Durham, W. H. (1988). Political ecology and environmental destruction in Latin America. In M. Painter & W. H. Durham (Eds.), The social causes of environmental destruction in Latin America (pp. 249–264). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  14. Faria, A. A. C. (2004). Uma visão da Floresta Nacional do Tapajós: diagnóstico rural participativo (DRP) – junho a setembro de 2003. Belterra: IBAMA-Promanejo.Google Scholar
  15. Fávero, O. A., Nucci, J. C., & Biasi, M. (2004). Vegetação natural potencial e mapeamento da vegetação e usos atuais das terras da Floresta Nacional de Ipanema, Iperó: conservação e gestão ambiental. Revista RA´E GA, 8, 55–68.Google Scholar
  16. FLONA/IBAMA. (2006). Census 2006. www.icmbio.gov.br/tapajós. Accessed 9 Feb 2010.
  17. Flona-Tapajós Report. (1996). Plano diretor e zoneamento comunitário da margem direita do Tapajós, versão 3. Piracicaba: MMA/IBAMA-IMAFLORA, Programa Piloto para Proteção das Florestas Tropicais do Brasil.Google Scholar
  18. Forsyth, T. (2003). Critical political ecology: The politics of environmental science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Fox, J., Fujita, Y., Ngidang, D., Peluso, N., Potter, L., Sakuntaladewi, N., Sturgeson, J., & Thomas, D. (2009). Policies, political-economy, and swidden in Southeast Asia. Human Ecology, 37, 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Futemma, C., & Brondízio, E. (2003). Land reform and land-use changes in the lower Amazon: Implications for agricultural intensification. Human Ecology, 31(3), 369–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Futemma, C., & Brondízio, E. (2004, July 27–29). Institutional dimensions and land-cover change: social groups, time of settlement, property size, and location and access affecting intra-regional variation in the Lower Amazon. Presented at the II LBA conference, Brasília, DF.Google Scholar
  22. Geist, H. J., & Lambin, E. F. (2002). Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience, 52(2), 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gerber, J. F., Veuthey, S., & Martínez-Alier, J. (2009). Linking political ecology with ecological economics in tree plantation conflicts in Cameroon and Ecuador. Ecological Economics, 68, 2885–2889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gibson, C. C., McKean, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (Eds.). (2000). People and forests: Communities, institutions, and governance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hanna, S. S., Folke, C., & Maler, K.-G. (1996). Rights to nature: Ecological, economic, cultural, and political principles of institutions for the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hetch, S. (1993). The logic of livestock and deforestation in Amazonia. BioScience, 43(10), 687–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lage, B. H. G., & Milone, P. C. (1991). Economia do turismo (3rd ed.). Campinas: Papirus Editora.Google Scholar
  28. Luchiari, M. T. (2002). Turismo e território: sustentabilidade para quem? In M. Barreto & E. Tamanini (Eds.), Redescobrindo a ecologia do turismo (pp. 111–125). Caxias do Sul: EDUCS.Google Scholar
  29. Machado, P. A. L. (1989). Direito Ambiental Brasileiro (2nd ed.). São Paulo: Editora Revista dos Tribunais Ltda.Google Scholar
  30. Machado, A. M. B. (1998). A produção do saber sobre a floresta pelos assentados na Fazenda Ipanema, Iperó (SP). Master thesis. University of São Paulo, Brazil.Google Scholar
  31. Martins, M. R., & Futemma, C. (2009, October 5–9). O jovem e o turismo rural: o caso do assentamento Ipanema, Iperó (SP). Presented at XVII Congresso de Iniciação Científica, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brazil.Google Scholar
  32. MDA (Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário). (2005). www.mda.gov.br/saf. Accessed 10 Feb 2010.
  33. MMA (Ministério do Meio Ambiente). (2003). Plano de manejo: Floresta Nacional de Ipanema. Brasília: Ministério do Meio Ambiente/IBAMA/Via Oeste Concessionária de Rodovias do Oeste De São Paulo.Google Scholar
  34. Moran, E. (1996). Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. In E. S. Leslie, T. N. Headland, & R. C. Bailey (Eds.), Tropical deforestation: The human dimension (pp. 149–164). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Moran, E., & Ostrom, E. (Eds.). (2005). Seeing the forest and the trees: Human-environment interactions in forest ecosystems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Myers, N. (1993). Tropical forests: The main deforestation fronts. Environmental Conservation, 20, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Painter, M. (1988). Introduction: Anthropological perspectives on environmental destruction. In M. Painter & W. H. Durham (Eds.), The social causes of environmental destruction in Latin America (pp. 1–21). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  39. Porro, R., Mesquita, B. A., & Santos, I. J. P. (2004). Expansão e trajetórias da pecuária na Amazônia: Maranhão, Brasil. Brasília: Editora UNB.Google Scholar
  40. Ranjan, R., & Upadhyay, V. P. (1999). Ecological problems due to shifting cultivation. Current Science, 77(10), 1246–1250.Google Scholar
  41. Ruschmann, D. V. M. (2000). Gestão da capacidade de carga turístico recreativa como fator de sustentabilidade ambiental: o caso da ilha João da Cunha. In B. H. Lage, & P. C. Milone (Orgs.), Turismo: teoria e prática (pp. 71–79). São Paulo: Atlas.Google Scholar
  42. Schellas, J., & Sánchez-Azofeifa, G. A. (2006). Post-frontier forest change adjacent to Braulio Carrillo National Park, Costa Rica. Human Ecology, 34(3), 407–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schmink, M. (1987). The “political ecology” of Amazonia. In P. D. Little & M. M. Horowitz (Eds.), Lands at risk in the Third World (IDA Monographs in Development Anthropology, pp. 38–57). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  44. Schmink, M., & Wood, C. (1992). Contested frontiers in Amazônia. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Scinocca, A. P. (2008). TCU diz que pequenos produtores respondem por 18% do desmatamento. São Paulo: Jornal o Estado de São Paulo.Google Scholar
  46. Scolese, E. (2009). Agricultura quer aliviar regra para fazendeiro. São Paulo: Jornal Folha de São Paulo. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u644869.shtml. Accessed 29 Oct 2009.
  47. Sheridan, T. (1988). Where the dove calls: The political ecology of a peasant corporate community in Northwestern Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  48. Shriar, A. (2007). In search of sustainable land use and food security in the arid hillside regions of Central America: Putting the horse before the cart. Human Ecology, 35, 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Soares, E. S. (2004). Desafios, resultados, ameaças e oportunidades em uma unidade de conservação na Amazônia: a Floresta Nacional do Tapajós. Manaus: Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources–ProManejo.Google Scholar
  50. Stonich, S. C. (1993). “I am destroying the land!” The political ecology of poverty and environmental destruction in Honduras. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  51. Terborgh, J., & Peres, C. A. (2002). O problema das pessoas nos parques. In J. Terborgh, C. van Schaik, L. Daveport, & M. Rao (Orgs.), Tornando os parques mais eficientes: estratégias para a conservação da natureza nos trópicos (pp. 334–346). Curitiba: Editora UFPR.Google Scholar
  52. Vayda, A. P., & Walters, B. B. (1999). Against political ecology. Human Ecology, 27, 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Veiga, J. B., Tourrand, J. F., Piketty, M. G., Poccard-Chapuis, R., Alves, A. M., & Thales, M. C. (2004). Expansão e trajetórias da pecuária na Amazônia. Brasília: Editora UNB.Google Scholar
  54. Venturino, M. C. C., & Futemma, C. (2009, October 5–9). Análise da conservação ambiental nos assentamentos rurais da Floresta Nacional de Ipanema, Iperó, SP: áreas de preservação permanente. Presented at XVII Congresso de Iniciação Científica. Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brazil.Google Scholar
  55. Veríssimo, A., Cochrane, M. A., & Souza, C., Jr. (2002). National forests in the Amazon. Science, 297, 1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Walker, R. T., Moran, E., & Anselin, L. (2000). Deforestation and cattle ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: External capital and household processes. World Development, 28, 683–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Environmental Studies and Research (NEPAM)University of Campinas (UNICAMP)CampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations