Socioeconomic evaluation of the program of Land Solidarity Reform in Iguatu and Quizeramobim municipal districs of the State of Ceará

Abstracts

Este estudo teve como objetivo detectar os impactos socioeconômicos do Programa Reforma Agrária Solidária sobre as comunidades beneficiadas. Para isso, calculou-se a geração de emprego e renda nas situações anterior (ano de 1996) e atual, ou seja, posterior à implantação do Programa, além dos Índices de Desenvolvimento Humano (IDHI) e de Condições de Vida (ICVI), no período atual. Foram utilizados dados de natureza primária obtidos através de pesquisa direta, realizada nas comunidades selecionadas. Os resultados encontrados na pesquisa, quanto à geração de emprego e renda, dão conta de que os impactos econômicos proporcionados pelo Programa se fizeram sentir principalmente na comunidade Barra I, onde se pratica agricultura irrigada, através do incremento do nível de emprego da mão-de-obra e da renda dos produtores. Observou-se que, mesmo com um nível educacional bastante baixo, é possível, com uma boa assistência técnica e apoio financeiro, produzir razoavelmente bem. Constatou-se a superioridade do nível de renda per capita média mensal dos produtores da área irrigada (0,571 salário mínimo) em relação à renda obtida pelos produtores da área de sequeiro (0,085 salário mínimo). Os produtores da área irrigada encontram-se acima do patamar de renda que define a "linha de pobreza" do Estado do Ceará (0,487 s.m.). Por sua vez, os produtores da área de sequeiro encontram-se bem abaixo desse patamar de renda. Concluindo, tem-se que os valores dos índices obtidos são considerados baixos quando comparados com os estabelecidos pela ONU para que um país, ou região, alcance um bom nível de desenvolvimento (maior que 0,800).

avaliação socioeconômica; Programa Reforma agrária e Estado do Ceará

Socioeconomic evaluation of the program of Land Solidarity Reform in Iguatu and Quizeramobim municipal districs of the State of Ceará

Elano José Rocha de Medeiros^I; Robério Telmo Campos^II

^IFishing Engineer, Master in Agricultural Economics by the Federal University of Ceará - UFC

^IIDoctor in Economics, Titular Professor of Agricultural Economics at the Federal University of Ceará - UFC. C.P. 6017, CEP 60.451-970, Fortaleza-CE - E-mail: [e-mail]

ABSTRACT

This study evaluates the socioeconomic impacts of the 1997 Brazilian Program of Land Solidarity Reform on two rural communities in Ceará Brazil. To accomplish this, we contrasted job and income data collected from 1996, before the Program’s inception, with similar data from 1998 and 1999. We also calculated a Human Development Index (Índice de Desenvolvimento Humano--HDI) and a Life Condition Index (Índice de Condição de Vida - ICV) for the two communities for the period between July 1998 and June 1999. Primary data were gathered by a survey applied to the sample communities. The results showed that the Reform had its strongest positive impact on producer incomes and employment in the community economically based on irrigated agriculture, Barra I. The earnings of an average farmer farming irrigated crops in Barra I were 0.571 of a Brazilian minimum wage, above the State of Ceará’s poverty line of 0.487 minimum wage, and above the incomes of dry-land crop farmers in Cacimba Nova, the other studied community (0.085 minimum wage). The values of the two calculated indices were below the United Nations Development Program’s HID values for a country or region considered to be at a reasonable level of development (0.8). We also found that the producers from these communities produced reasonably well and made good use of technical and financial support, even though they had a low level of education.

Key words: Socioeconomic evaluation, land reform, State of Ceará.

1. The Problem and its importance

The State of Ceará has an area of 148,016 km², 92.24% of which is semi-arid. In the huge semi-arid region, periodic droughts are common and many years have average precipitation below the historic average. This phenomenon has contributed to a significant decrease in the State’s gross agricultural product, negatively affected economic performance, and exacerbated regional social problems.

Other factors have combined with these adverse climate conditions to lower the performance of semi-arid agriculture. These other factors include the use of inadequate and antiquated agricultural techniques, the labor pool’s low educational level, deficient social and economic infra-structure, and the area’s highly concentrated land ownership regime. If these man-controlled problems were properly addressed, the rural standard of living would improve and the rural population would be more inclined to remain in rural areas. In particular, the area’s land ownership regime, which greatly restricts the rural producers’ access to land, helps to explain the intense migratory flow to urban areas

Aiming to reduce the serious problems affecting the rural population in Brazil’s semi-arid Northeast, the government of the state of Ceará has implemented programs to develop the region, among them the Program of Land Solidarity Reform, one of the most recent initiatives. This innovative program is intended to open productive land to landless rural workers and the owners of very small farms (minifúndios). As a substitute for earlier programs based on the appropriation of fallow land, the Program facilitates the purchase of this land by the target population. This form of land acquisition involves, mainly, those properties that could not be appropriated to meet social interests, that is unproductive properties smaller than 15 fiscal modules and those considered productive regardless of their area.

The Program of Land Solidarity Reform encourages its clients to negotiate through their associations for the acquisition of land directly from rural property owners. The Program then makes available reimbursable loans for land acquisition and grants for investment in farming equipment and materials. The Program’s requirements are that its beneficiaries be landless rural producers or minifúndio (tiny farm) owners, agree to a contractual commitment to repay the financed amounts used to purchase the property, and that they negotiate the purchase through an association.

Based on the Program’s positive results in Ceará, the Federal Government formed a partnership with the World Bank to expand the Program to the Brazilian states of Maranhão, Pernambuco, Bahia, and Minas Gerais. The Program was then renamed Cédula da Terra (Land Bill) and more recently, Banco da Terra (Land Bank).

According to Brandão (1998), in 1997, the Program assisted 694 rural families in Ceará and funded the purchase of 23,622 hectares, which corresponded to 44 rural properties. These rural properties are the object of this investigation.

Our study aims to test the hypothesis that projects financed by the Program of Land Solidarity Reform generate positive revenue, as determined by the creation of new jobs and income, regardless of whether irrigated or dry agriculture was practiced. Consequently, it is expected that the level of development and quality of life of the rural population benefited by the Program in the state of Ceará has improved. We also intend to evaluate and analyze the effects of the Program of Land Solidarity Reform on specific projects it funds. This analysis will examine changes in social and economic factors, such as employment, job quality, incomes, patterns of human development, and quality of life

2.1 Area of study and data source

Two representative projects among those assisted by the Program were selected for study. The selection process was regulated by considerations of available land area, soil type, current and potential land use, production techniques, infrastructure, and other relevant information. The selected projects were Barra I in the Iguatu municipal district, and Cacimba Nova, located between the municipalities of Quixeramobim and Madalena.

Barra I is 7 km from Iguatu city. It has an area of 51.20 hectares and contains 10 families. Iguatu city is 382 km from the state’s capital, Fortaleza, and linked with the capital by an asphalt road. The farmers of Barra I cultivate irrigated rice and cotton. The local climate is BSw'h' according to the Koeppen classification system, hot and semi-arid, with an average yearly temperature of between 24^o C and 28^o C, peaking between August and March when it of often reaches 35^o C. Yearly average precipitation ranges from 700 to 800 mm (IPLANCE, 1998). The terrain is flat on 70% of the land, with smooth hills in the remaining area.

The most common flora in Barra I’s region is Ciliary vegetation growing in the riverbeds. The region’s typical trees are angico, juazeiro, oiticica, mulungu and carnaúba. Because of intense agriculture and ranching activities, forests cannot be found in the region. Most of the property has dark gray-brown alluvial soil with sand to clay texture.

The studied property’ water is supplied by the Jaguaribe and Truçu Rivers. The latter is a perennial water source. The property also has three Amazonian wells, which supply water fit for human and animal consumption. These wells supply ample water throughout the year.

The Cacimba Nova property has an area of 392 ha and contains 14 families. The property is located between the municipalities of Quixeramobim and Madalena, 53 km from Quixeramobim and 28 km from Madalena. Madalena and Quixeramobim cities are 171 km and 200 km distant from the state capital respectively, and all three are connected by asphalt roads.

Agricultural land in Cacimba Nova is used to grow cotton, corn, beans, and forage (palma forrageira, and capineiras). Cacimba Nova has a predominantly hot, semi-arid climate, Koeppen classification BSw'h'. The average daily temperatures fluctuate between 26^o C and 30^o C. The dry season lasts 7 or 8 months and annual precipitation averages around 700 mm (IPLANCE, 1998). The landscape is mostly smooth, with small hills that have between a 2% and 8% slope.

The area’s natural vegetation consists of species representative of the caatinga ecosystem: pau branco, sabiá, angico, aroeira, comaru, catingueira, marmeleiro and jurema. Cacimba Nova shows eutrophic alluvial soils, podzolico yellow-red Tb with weak and moderate A, and an average/clay texture.

Cacimba Nova is crossed by two non-perennial rivers: the Pirabibu and the Fechado. The only perennial water sources are two Amazonian wells. These wells supply the community’s entire population with potable water, water for animals, and enough to irrigate 3 hectares of grass.

This study used primary data gathered through a survey applied to the selected communities’ families. "Current period" data are for the period from July 1998 to June 1999. Data for "before the project" are from 1996. Secondary data were collected from researches conducted by the State of Ceará’s Secretary of Rural Development (Secretaria de Desenvolvimento Rural - SDR); the Planning Institute of Ceará (Instituto de Planejamento do Ceará - IPLANCE); the Institute of Agrarian Development of Ceará (Institudo de Desenvolvimento Agrário do Ceará - IDACE); and by the Ceará Technical Assistance and Rural Extension Service (Empresa de Técnica e Extensão Rural do Ceará – EMATER - CE).

2.2 Theoretical foundation

This section presents previous works that discuss Brazilian agrarian problems, agricultural labor, and rural sector income. It also presents the main human development indices.

2.2.1 Agrarian structure, jobs, and labor income

In Brazil, the structure of rural land distribution is characterized by high concentration; consequently, a relatively large portion of the rural population has only a small amount of land to provide for their subsistence and earn a minimal income. The great majority of the rural population does not own land or have the resources to farm other people's land through a leasing regime.

The only income option for this massive rural labor force is that of selling their labor. This leads to excess labor supply and a high concentration of market power in the hands of large land owners. The Brazilian rural work force is constantly in competition to provide labor, which drives the cost of labor even lower. This is the main reason why Brazilian rural workers have low salaries and poor standards of living. By opening land to the landless, not only would their standard of living improve, but their relative position in the labor market would improve as excess labor becomes occupied farming on their own land. As Prado Jr. (1987) wrote,

"As long as there were large farms, and consequently land concentration, the foundation of the Brazilian agrarian economy, there will not be feasible and practical hope to small farms and modest farmers." (p. 80) "In order to avoid the problem of land use becoming a big business for the minorities, but rather generate benefits for rural labor that need to extract from [this labor] their subsistence, it is necessary to create proper measures to give them access to land ownership. This should be the main issue of land reform, since by accomplishing that the goal of the land reform would be achieved and would lead to higher standards of living for the rural population. As soon as they have the land’s title, there would be better standards of living (p82)".

Veiga (1998) compares the Brazilian rural labor market with the rural labor markets in countries that have a much more developed agriculture sector. The author stressed that countries that achieved the highest levels of education, life expectancy, and per capita GDP were the ones adopting agriculture based on family work, while those countries with lower indexes of human development continue to avoid supporting family agriculture.

Anne Buttimer (p. 2) compares Brazilian and North American regions that are dominated by agribusinesses¹ rather than family business and agriculture. She found that rural areas dominated by agribusiness have fewer schools, churches, clubs, associations, and newspapers than areas where family agriculture is the economic base. It was also found that housing conditions are poorer, recreation is practically non-existent, and there is a high degree of youth delinquency in areas where agribusiness rather than family agriculture prevails. Veiga (1998) points out that this rural condition is also found in other countries, such as Japan and those in Eastern Europe.

This dichotomy between rural areas where agribusiness dominates and rural areas where family faming is the norm arises from policies that offer incentives to assist production based on family work. When applied, these policies seek to include millions of rural families in the middle class, which implies the provision of land title, more education, support for cooperatives, an adequate rural credit system, and technical assistance for the small scale producer. In this process, multifunctionality has an important role in that it reduces the family’s dependence on agricultural production to generate income.

In the State of Ceará, 76.6% of the total labor employed in the primary sector consists of landless rural workers, 78.7% of the farms are less than 100 hectares, and these farms occupy only 25.3% of the area devoted to agriculture. The main cause of the high percentage of landless workers is financial constraint and concentrated land ownership. The concentration of land ownership in Ceará, as shown by the Gini index, has systematically increased since 1980 (Pereira, 2000).

The government of Ceará, given the historic pattern of land concentration, decided to create a land reform program that was both unlike and complementary to traditional Brazilian land reform programs, which were based on expropriation in the social interest. The Program of Land Solidarity Reform was developed to be a new model of agrarian restructuring. The Program facilitates the direct purchase of land from its rural owner by landless workers and the owners of very small rural properties (minifundiários). The purchase is a negotiated process, intermediated by the buyers’ associations, with credit provided for the land’s purchase and grants awarded for investment in equipment and materials.

2.2.2 The Human Development Indices

Before 1990, the development of a country, state, or municipal district was measured by the value of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) without consideration given to the local populations’ standard of living. A new focus was given to the concept of development when the Human Development Report was published by the United Nations in 1990. From the new perspective, the ultimate objective of development became the assurance of the individual's welfare. According this new concept, the population’s living standard and the manner economic resources are used to improve this standard is the measure of development, not the amount of accumulated capital.

The Human Development Index (HDI) was created by a group of experts led by Mahbub ul Had to measure living standards throughout the world. The Index’s values have been disseminated every year since 1990 for all countries with a population above 1 million by the United Nations Development Programe (UNDP) in its Human Development Report.

The HDI is a "composite index measuring average achievement in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, knowledge, and a decent standard of living" (UNDP, 2002). The HDI is composed of a life expectancy index, an education index, and a GDP index.² Although its basic concepts have not changed, the HDI has been reformulated to improve its operational methodology.

According to Maria Cecília Prates Rodrigues (1991a), for developing countries like Brazil, it is important to introduce an intermediary concept of development that takes into account economic growth, because at these countries current stage of development, an individuals’ degree of achievement cannot be measured. In 1991, she created the Social Development Index (IDS - Índice de Desenvolvimento Social) to assess social development in five Brazilian regions. The first version of the IDS considered three equally weighted indicators: life expectancy at birth as the health and longevity indicator, level of adult literacy as the education indicator, and the Gini Coefficient of the income distribution of the working population (PEA - População Economicamente Ativa) as the income indicator (Rodrigues, 1991a). A third version was created in 1994 to analyze the social situation in the Brazilian States (Rodrigues, 1994).

In 1995, the Social and Economic Development Index (IDES - Índice de Desenvolvimento Social e Econômico) was created to measure the level of deprivation in each municipal district of the state of Ceará. This indicator is composed of socioeconomic variables only, although the methodology used to construct the IDES is similar to that used to calculate the HDI. The IDES’s income indicator is formed by per capita income variables and the Gini Index; its health indicator is represented by the rate of infant mortality; its living conditions indicator is formed by variables representing water supply, sanitary facilities, and garbage collection; and its education indicator is the level of literacy of those over 15 years of age (Oliveira et al., 1995).

In 1996, a study developed by the João Pinheiro Foundation (FJP) and the Brazilian Applied Economic Research Institute (IPEA) calculated the Human Development Index and the Living Condition Index (ICV - Índice de Condições de Vida) for the population of the state of Minas Gerais at the municipal level (FJP/IPEA, 1996). This municipal HDI is based on the original HDI, with some methodological adaptations to make comparisons among countries at the municipal level possible.

Pereira (2000) used the Settlement Human Development Index (IHDA - Índice de Desenvolvimento Humano em Assentamentos) and the Settlement Living Condition Index (ICVA-Índice de Condições de Vida em Assentamentos) to measure the level of human development and the standard of living of 405 families located between the municipalities of Madalena and Quixeramobim in Ceará’s São Joaquim Settlement Project .

The level of human development achieved in the studied Program of Land Solidarity Reform assisted communities was determined using a human development index and living conditions index. These indices are broadly based on the United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Index (HDI) and Living Condition Index (ICV) and are derived using the methodology found in Pereira’s work except for a change of some variables that form Pereira’s ICVA.

2.3 Method of analysis

The methods of analysis used in this study are intended to evaluate the performance of different economic activities addressed by the Brazilian state of Ceará’s Program of Land Solidarity Reform.

The methods applied to develop our human development index, the IHDI, and living condition index, the ICVI, for the studied Program of Land Solidarity Reform properties are those normally used to calculate levels of employment, levels of income generation, and the United Nations Development Program’s "Human Development Index" (HDI).

2.3.1 Job Generation (total labor change) ³

The total work done by a rural community is the sum of work in agricultural activities, services, and other activities. Total work can be expressed as follows,

where:

T = total work;

A= column vector (nx1) of the area cultivated;

M₁= line vector (1xn) of services and other goods produced;

O= column vector (mx1) of services and other goods produced;

M₂= line vector (1xm) of the required labor for services or goods per unit produced;

A_ij= area cultivated of the product i (i=1, 2, ,u) in the farm j (j=1, 2, ,n);

M_1ij= labor employed in the production of product i (i=1, 2, 3, , u), per unit of area, in the farm j (j=1, 2, , n);

O_hk= production of service or good h in the farmer (employee) k;

M_2hk= labor required by service or unit of a product or good h used in the farmer (employee) k.

Assuming a certain project, we can measure the changes in the employment level as the difference between two moments: the number of jobs at the starting moment and at the moment of project evaluation, expressed as follows,

or

where:

DT= changes in the job level;

M_1ijt1= labor required for product i (i=1, 2, 3, , u), per hectare, in the farm j (j=1, 2, , n) at the moment of the project evaluation;

M_1ijt0= labor required for product i (i=1, 2, 3, , u), per hectare, in the farm j (j=1, 2, 3, , n) at the beginning of the project;

A_ijt1= area cultivated with product i (i=1, 2, 3, , u) in the farm j (j=1, 2, 3, , n) at the moment of the project evaluation;

A_ijt0= area cultivated with product i (i=1, 2, 3, , u) in the farm j (j=1, 2, 3, , n) at the beginning of the project;

Therefore, DTcan be interpreted as follows,

• D

  T> 0 implies the increase of the employment level of producers after implementing the project;

• D

  T= 0 implies no change in the employment level of the producers after implementing the project;

• D

  T < 0 implies the decrease in the employment level of the producers after implementing the project;

2.3.2 Income Generation ⁴

The total income generated by a rural community varies according to changes in a range of factors: total area cultivated for each activity; the value of the product sold per unit, and the average yield per area.

Considering a certain region on which a project has been implanted, we can determine the producer income generated by the project as follows,

where:

R = Operational net income;

P₁ = line vector (1xn) of received prices by producers;

D = diagonal matrix (nxn) of physical yields;

A = column vector (nx1) of the cultivated area;

C = line vector (1xn) of the operational cost of production;

P₂ = line vector (1xm) of the net prices of services and other goods produced;

O = column vector (mx1) of services and other goods produced.

The calculation of income variation from before the project and during the project’s first years can be made as follows,

where:

V_it1 = value of the production of good i (i=1, 2, , u) per hectare at the moment of the project evaluation;

A_ijt1 = area cultivated of the product i (i=1, 2, , u) in the farm j (j=1, 2, , n) at the moment of the project evaluation;

C_it1 = operational cost of the product i (i=1, 2, ,u) per hectare at the moment of the project evaluation;

V_IT0 = value of the production of product i (i=1, 2, , u) per hectare at the beginning of the project;

A_ijt0 = area cultivated of the product i (i=1, 2, , u) in the farm j (j=1, 2, , n) at the moment of the project evaluation;

C_it0 = operational cost of the product i (i=1, 2, , u) per hectare at the moment of the beginning of the project.

Therefore, DR can be interpreted as follows,

• D

  R > 0 implies the increase of the net income of producers after implementing the project;

• D

  R = 0 implies no change in the net income of producers after implementing the project;

• D

  R < 0 implies the decrease in the net income of producers after implementing the project;

Income from agriculture was calculated using the methodology employed to calculate Operational Production Cost, as suggested by Matsunanga et al. (1976). This methodology is frequently used calculate agricultural income because it addresses difficulties encountered when estimating certain cost items, such as the return on fixed capital per area of land or per producer. Other sources of rural income used in the calculation of total income were government income, which encompassed input and labor subsidies, retirement income, and labor income. The inclusion of these revenues as part of total rural community income is justified because they are monetary amounts received by the producers' families that are not reimbursed and represent a large portion of the household’s income, especially in communities that show deficient agricultural activity.

2.3.3 The Human Development Index (IHDI) and Living Condition Index (ICVI) of the Program of Land Solidarity Reform Assisted Properties under Study

It has been assumed that the social effects of an economic stimulus program can be observed only after a minimum of 4-5 years. Given that, we could not set an evaluation of the social effects of activities stimulated by the Program of Land Solidarity Reform Program as the objective of this study; the Program was too recently implemented. Therefore, this study is intended to update the social indicators of the communities we examined to reflect the current situation and make later evaluation of the Project’s social contribution more complete and more easily accomplished.

Although, the basic method used to calculate the studied communities’ IHDI and ICVI is the same as that used to calculate the United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Index, this study’s IHDI is directly based on the Municipal Human Development Index (IHDM-Índice de Desenvolvimento Humano Municipal), and this study’s ICVI is directly based on the Living Condition Index (ICV) elaborated by the João Pinheiro Foundation and IPEA with the addition of housing and recreational data. We believe that the ICVI index proposed in our study better portrays the studied population’s living conditions than the original ICV. It is important to stress that this study’s ICVI cannot be compared to the ICV since they account for different aspects of the living condition.

A three stage method is used to calculate this study’s indices. In the first stage, variables are selected and then grouped by quality of life indicator. In Table 1, we present the variables, and indicators used to calculate the IHDI and ICVI.

Table 1
- Click to enlarge

In Table 1, it is observed that the IHDI is based on the combination of four variables into three indicators and the ICVI is composed of 20 variables grouped into six indicators.

The second stage of the calculation of this study’s indices consists of transforming the variables into indices that vary from zero to one with higher values indicating better living conditions. In this sense, it is necessary to choose the worst and the best possible values for each variable according to which limits are established and applied by the following formulae,

where:

I_ji = living condition index value of variable i in region or strata j;

X_ij = observed average value of the variable i in the region or strata j;

Min_jX_ij = minimum value of the variable i of the region or strata j;

Max_jX_ij = minimum value of the variable i of the region or strata j.

The expression above assures that the index is always between zero and one. Therefore, when the variable tends to better values, the index tends toward one. Oppositely, when the variable tends to worse values, the index tends toward zero.

Table 1 presents the worst and best possible values chosen for each of the four variables used in the construction of the IHDI and each of the 20 variables used in the construction of the ICVI. In the construction of the IHDI and ICVI, we adopted the same maximum and minimum values used in the ICV published in the Human Development and Living Condition Report: Brazilian Indicators (PNUD/IPEA/FJP/IBGE, 1998).

The third stage in IHDI and ICVI calculation consists of choosing the weights to be assigned to each variable. Since equal weights are assigned to each indicator and the indicators are not made up of same number of variables, the variables contributing to one indicator may have different weights than the variables that comprise another indicator; and these weights are inversely related to the number of variables in the indicator.

First, a weight for each variable is chosen. It is important to stress that the weights assigned to the variables are somewhat subjective. Each variable’s weight in the final index is obtained by multiplying the weight of that variable in the indicator by that indicator’s relative weight in the index. For instance, the weigh of the two life expectancy variables in the final ICVI index is the product of the variable’s weight in the indicator, 1/2 in this case, and the indicator’s relative weight in the ICVI index, in this case 1/6. Each one of the two life expectancy variables then has a weight of 1/12 in the composition of the final ICVI index. Table 1 presents the weightings chosen for each variable and each indicator in the IHDI and ICVI.

3. Results and Discussion

This section presents results from analysis of the sample communities’ job and income generation data before and after implementation of the Program of Land Solidarity Reform and their calculated level of human development and quality of life. The results show that the number of jobs in the Barra I community increased 74.33% after Program implementation, from 2,184.70 man days in the before implementation to 3,808.60 man days in the current period (Table 2). Net income increased 139.36% between the two periods, from R$16,494.28 in before implementation to R$39,481.20 in the current period (Table 3).

Table 2
- Click to enlarge

Table 3
- Click to enlarge

In the community of Cacimba Nova, employment increased 135.40% after Program implementation, from 1,744.00 man days in the earlier period to 4,176.00 man days in the current period (Table 4). Unexpectedly, net income decreased 2.14% between the earlier period and the current period, from R$9,317.71 to R$9,118.36 (Table 5).

Table 4
- Click to enlarge

Table 5
- Click to enlarge

One reason that the amount of labor used in Cacimba Nova increased much more than in Barra I after Program implementation is that there was increased government hiring in Cacimba Nova in1998 due a severe drought in the community’s region.

As shown in Table 5, Cacimba Nova’s current total gross income is significantly impacted by retirement payments and government sources. Nine percent of the community’s households’ incomes come from retirement benefits and approximately 37% comes from government subsidies to production and employment.

Table 6 presents the values for all indicators and variables that compose the Human Development Indexes (IHDI) and the Living Condition Indexes (ICVI) for the state of Ceará, the municipalities in the study areas, the São Joaquim Settlement,⁵ and the communities of Barra I and Cacimba Nova.

Table 6 - Click to enlarge

The values for IHDI and its indicators are lower for Barra I and Cacimba Nova then for the State or the study area’s municipalities. The values for the IHDI and its indicators are also higher for the São Joaquim Settlement than for Cacimba Nova except for the life expectancy indicator, and higher for Barra I except for the life expectancy and income indicators.

The ICVI calculated in this study cannot be directly compared with the state or municipality ICVs since the indices and indicators were constructed using different variables. Therefore, we limit ourselves to the general observation that the values of the indicators making up the studied properties’ IDH and the ICV, except for the ICV life expectancy indicator, are lower similar indicators for the State or the municipalities. As the values for State and municipality indices and indicators have grown since their calculation in 1991, it is expected that the values for the communities’ indicators are now even lower relative to values for the state’s and the municipalities’ indicators.

The IHDI and ICVI values for the community of Barra I were higher than for Cacimba Nova. The IHDI for Barra I was 0.404 while Cacimba Nova’s was 0.283.The ICVI for Barra I was 0.614 while Cacimba Nova’s was 0.502.

As mentioned earlier, Barra I showed slightly lower education indicator values than Cacimba Nova in both indices. It is important to stress that the value of Barra I’s education indicator is below its IHDI value, indicating a very low level of educational in the community. The Brazilian Institute of Statistics and Geography (IBGE) reported that 78% of Cereá’s rural population have less than four years of education and are functionally illiterate (Diario do Nordeste, 1999). The state’s rural population’s low level of literacy has impaired the technological development of local agriculture.

4. Conclusions and suggestions

Based on the results from our study of job and income generation, we conclude that the Program of Land Solidarity Reform contributed effectively to improve these indicators. It was found that after the Program’s inauguration, the increase in household income arising from new jobs and better agricultural performance was greater in Barra 1 than in Cacimba Nova.

The economic results from Barra I contradict L. Hall’s (Medeiros, 2000) conclusion that irrigated agricultural production is not suited to the cultural level of agricultural producers in Brazil’s Northeast. Our findings show that even if their educational level is very low, they can produce reasonably, most probably due to outside technical and financial support.

We found that irrigated crop production resulted in higher income per capita than dry land crop production, 0.571 minimum wage and 0.085 minimum wage respectively. In June 1999, the World Bank defined 0.478 of a minimum wage as the "poverty line" in the State of Ceará. Although producers of irrigated crops earn enough to remain above this poverty line, they earn less than residents in Ceará’s municipal districts (0.66 minimum wage) and less than the average state resident (0.65 minimum wage) did in 1991. Producers of dry land crops had incomes significantly below the World Banks’ poverty line and below the average income level reported in the near-by municipalities of Quixeramobim (0.43 minimum salaries) and Madalena (0.24 minimum salaries) in 1991.

Results showed that a high percentage of dry land crop producers’ incomes come from the government and a low percentage of their income comes from agricultural production, demonstrating these producer’s dependence on governmental financial assistance. This situation indicates that recipients of loans made possible through the Program of Land Solidarity Reform must be selected with diligent consideration given to the crops they farm and the climatic conditions in the areas they cultivate. Program administrators must also pay special attention to the local infrastructure and the local sources of alternative income generation if the Program is to move its clients to self-sufficiency in a short time.

The following two points must be stressed. When our study was completed, the Program had been in existence only a short time (three years); therefore, its effects on the examined properties’ total production capacity had not been completely developed. Also, are data were skewed by the 1998 drought, which impaired that year’s initial agricultural production and required emergency governmental actions that absorbed public resources from other government programs .

The two synthetic socioeconomic development indices constructed for our study, the IHDI and ICVI, were developed in the same basic manner as the UNDP’s Human Development Index but use data from a much smaller sample. The 1998-1999 values calculated for both studied communities human development indexes (IHDI) were below 0.500, with Barra I scoring 0.404 and Cacimba Nova scoring 0.283. These values indicate a low level of human development.⁶ The 1998-1999 values calculated for both communities living conditions indexes (ICVI) indicate average living conditions, with Barra I scoring 0.614 and Cacimba Nova scoring 0.502. The values for the two communities’ human development indexes were found to be lower than their state’s, two of the three nearby municipalities’, and the adjacent São Joaquim Settlement’s. This suggests the need for Program continuance and possible redesign.

This study was limited by the lack of recent data on the examined municipal districts and rural communities. The most recent information about the municipalities of Quixeramobim and Madalena was found in a study by Pereira (2000).

Change in the two communities’ level of socioeconomic development brought on by the Program’s implementation was not evaluated. It was found that not enough time had passed since the Program’s inception to make an observable change in the affected residents’ standards of living. However, the social indicator values found in Table 6 can be used for comparison with data from future research.

The Program’s effort to open land ownership to the landless made an important contribution to its beneficiary population’s level of satisfaction: they now own the land they work.. This increase in satisfaction was felt even by those who did not obtain positive economic return from their use of funds provided through the Program, for example the residents of Cacimba Nova. Therefore, the Program did contribute to keep rural workers in rural areas.

We offer the following suggestions:

- Before implementing any land reform program, thoroughly study the socioeconomic condition in the target communities in the initial situation to better measure the program’s socioeconomic impacts, which will facilitate later improvements in the program’s orientation.

- Evaluate this paper’s proposed synthetic index of socioeconomic development, the ICVI, to suggest the addition of variables that may have been omitted.

- The Program of Land Solidarity Reform should give preference to the transfer of properties more suited to irrigated agriculture since they have given evidence of greater economic return.

- Rural stimulus programs should try to reduce their client’s dependence on agricultural production and stress the diversification of income generation activities, mainly in regions where the climate is capricious and dry crop agriculture predominates.

- Finally, agriculture product producer associations must expand their political organizations and persuade governmental and non-governmental organs to develop initiatives to insure minimum product price levels, price stability, and efficient product distribution and storage.

References

• AQUINO PEREIRA, L. C. de. Análise do mercado de terras agrícolas no estado do Ceará 1980 a 1999 Fortaleza: UFC/Departamento de Economia Agrícola, 2000. 154 f. Dissertação (Mestrado).
• BRANDÃO, W. A Reforma agrária solidária do Ceará Fortaleza: 1998. 32 p. (mimeo.).
• DIÁRIO DO NORDESTE. Agricultura tem os maiores índices de pobreza. Diário do Nordeste, Fortaleza, 13 Jun. 1999. p.5, c.1-4. (Negócios).
• FUNDAÇÃO JOAÃO PINHEIRO (FJP)/IPEA. Condições de vida nos municípios de Minas Gerais– 1970/1980/1991. Belo Horizonte: FJP, 1996. 244 p.
• IPLANCE. Perfil básico municipal Fortaleza: IPLANCE, 1998. (CD ROM).
• MATSUNAGA, M. et al. Metodologia de custo de produção utilizada pelo IEA. Revista agricultura em São Paulo, São Paulo, v.23, t. I, p. 123-139, 1976.
• MEDEIROS, E. J. R. de. Avaliação Socioeconômica do Programa Reforma Agrária Solidária: estudos de caso nos imóveis Barra I e Cacimba Nova Estado do Ceará. Fortaleza: UFC/Departamento de Economia Agrícola, 2000. 173 f. Dissertação (Mestrado).
• OLIVEIRA, A. A. et al. Índice de desenvolvimento econômico e social. Ranking dos municípios -1991 Fortaleza: IPLANCE, 1995. 42 p. (mimeo.).
• PEREIRA, J. K. C. Análise socioeconômica em assentamento de reforma agrária no Ceará: o caso São Joaquim. Fortaleza: UFC/Departamento de Economia Agrícola, 2000. 132 f. Dissertação (Mestrado).
• PNUD/IPEA/Fundação João Pinheiro (FJP)/IBGE. Desenvolvimento humano e condições de vida: indicadores brasileiros Brasília: PNUD, 1998. 140 p.
• PRADO JÚNIOR, C. A questão agrária 4. ed. São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1987. 188 p.
• RODRIGUES, M. C. P. O Índice de desenvolvimento social (IDS). Revista Conjuntura Econômica, São Paulo, v.45, n.1, p. 73-77, Jan. 1991.
• RODRIGUES, M. C. P. O Desenvolvimento social nos estados brasileiros. Revista Conjuntura Econômica, São Paulo, v.48, n.3, p. 52-56, Mar. 1994.
• SAMPAIO, Y. et al. Desenvolvimento rural: efeitos sobre o emprego e a renda em quatro projetos do Polonordeste, In: ENCONTRO ANPEC, 11, 1983, Brasília. Anais.. Brasília: ANEPC, 1983. v.1, p. 157-191.
• VEIGA, J.E. da. Diretrizes para uma política agrária São Paulo: 1998. 32 p. ( mimeo.).

1

According Veiga (1998), agribusiness firms use productive management forms anchored on employment of large number of paid workers. These forms of production are based on a complete separation of the work and capital property (land, equipment, development).

2

" http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/en/indicator/pdf/hdr_2002_table_1.pdf

3

The methodological approach showed here follows Sampaio (1983), except by some adjustments.

4

Basically following Sampaio (1983), with few changes.

5

This is in regard to the work by Pereira (2000) whose results are compared to the calculated indexes of the properties' sample.

6

A UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) value of 0.500 or below is representative of a low level of human development in a country or region while a value of between 0.500 and 0.800 is representative of medium human development (http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/en/indicator/pdf/hdr_2002_table_1.pdf).

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  13 Dec 2004
• Date of issue
  Dec 2002