AGRARIAN POLICY AND TERRITORIAL ORDINATION IN MARAJÓ, PARÁ

ABSTRACT

Current Brazilian legislation has fundamental elements for the recognition of the territories of traditional populations, in particular in the Amazon, such as the Second National Plan of Agrarian Reform (PNRA). The objective of this study is to analyze the agrarian reform policy stemming from II PNRA and its developments in Marajó, State of Pará. In addition to document analysis and a review of the relevant bibliography, the methodology used was a comparative study, which helps analyze processes of social change and public policy. It was found that despite the efforts of social movements and the consequent inclusion of a number of families in the federal government program, in itself a significant conquest, exogenous interests have prevailed to the detriment of the real recognition of those Marajoara families waiting for a better effectuation of an agrarian reform policy in the region. The study also considered that the limitations in the implementation of this Plan in Marajó has enabled: (i) the continuity of the logging business, a low-income economic activity that causes a large environmental liability, (ii) a platform for political-electoral interests and (iii) the arrival of the agricultural frontier and the structuring of agribusiness.

Keywords:
Land reform; Traditional populations; Amazonia

RESUMO

A legislação brasileira atual apresenta elementos fundamentais para o reconhecimento de territórios das populações tradicionais, em particular da Amazônia, a exemplo do que estabelece o II Plano Nacional de Reforma Agrária (PNRA). O objetivo deste estudo é analisar a política de reforma agrária oriunda do II PNRA e seus desdobramentos no Marajó, Estado do Pará. Além da análise de documentos e revisão de bibliografia pertinente, utilizou-se como base metodológica o estudo comparativo, que ajuda analisar processos de mudança social e de políticas públicas. Constatou-se que apesar do esforço dos movimentos sociais e, consequentemente, de diversas famílias já estarem incluídas nesta ação do governo federal, o que caracteriza significante conquista, os interesses exógenos prevalecem em detrimento do real reconhecimento de diversas famílias marajoaras que aguardam pela melhor efetivação de uma política de reforma agrária na região. O estudo considerou ainda que a limitação na execução deste Plano no Marajó possibilita: (i) a continuidade da exploração madeireira empresarial, sendo uma atividade econômica pouco includente e geradora de grande passivo ambiental, (ii) plataforma para interesses político-eleitorais e (iii) a chegada da fronteira agrícola e estruturação do agronegócio.

Palavras-chave:
Reforma agrária; Populações tradicionais; Amazônia

RÉSUMÉ

L’actuelle législation brésilienne présente des éléments fondamentaux pour la reconnaissance des territoires des populations traditionnelles, en particulier en Amazonie, comme avec l’exemple qu’établit le II Plan National de Réforme Agraire (PNRA). L’objectif du travail est d’analyser la politique de réforme agraire résultant du II PNRA et de ses développements dans le Marajó, état du Pará. En plus de l’analyse de documents et d’une révision bibliographique pertinente, nous utilisons comme base méthodologique l’étude comparative, qui aide à analyser le processus de changement social et de politiques publiques. Nous constatons que malgré l’effort des mouvements sociaux et, par conséquent, des diverses familles déjà impliquées dans l’action du gouvernement fédéral, ce qui caractérise une conquête significative, les intérêts exogènes prévalent au détriment de la réelle reconnaissance de diverses familles du Marajó qui attendent que la limitation dans l’exécution du Plan dans le Marajó rende possible: (i) la continuité de l’exploitation forestière par les entreprises avec des méthodes traditionnelles, soit, une activité économique peu inclusive et qui génère de grandes responsabilités environnementales. (ii) une plateforme pour les intérêts politiques électorales et (iii) l’arrivée de la frontière agricole et de la structuration de l’agrobusiness.

Mots-clés:
Réforme agraire; population traditionnelle; Amazonie brésilienne

INTRODUCTION

The Brazilian State is transforming its interaction with organized civil society, especially through participatory public policies. This has led to the institutionalization of social practices and the creation of different innovations in democratic management. This interaction includes social organizations with diverse interests, from those that seek the inclusion of those excluded from public policy, to those who want a radical change in the model of development in the country - neoliberalism (GOHN, 2011). Thus, in Brazil there is a range of social movements with multiple purposes, which demand the maintenance of democratic achievements and new ones, as well as the recognition of their specificities, like the socio-territorial movements¹ who fight for the recognition of their territorialities (FERNANDES, 2005).

The struggle of the socio-territorial movements for the recognition of their territories is a social process of reinvention in the struggle for land in Brazil. These movements defend the right of reproduction through traditional ways of life, reinforced by ancestry and especially by appealing to tradition. These elements point to the need for an agrarian reform differentiated from one with a perspective merely of land distribution, which is based on the rural solely as a place of production (SAUER, 2013). A national agrarian policy that recognizes the territories of traditional populations is an advance in the recognition of families that suffer with the diverse processes of deterritorialization currently in force. In this sense, the Second National Plan for Agrarian Reform (PNRA), by incorporating the territorial rights of traditional populations in its scope, represents not only an advance in terms of public policy, but also a great achievement for Brazilian society as a whole, which gives recognition and value to the rich socio-productive tradition of these populations. However, the strengthening of the national agro-export model, with the agribusiness model of development for the Brazilian countryside, structured in the discourse of global demand for animal feed, food and raw materials for the production of biofuel, jeopardize this policy and the achievements related to it.

This has led to a constant process of expulsion of traditional populations through the expansion of the agricultural frontier, particularly in the Amazon region, where there is a predominance of these populations (ESTEVAM and STEDILE, 2013). Writing on the Amazon, Becker (2004) calls attention to the fact that the region has become a region in itself, that is, that the local / regional society is outlining its project for the region. This has allowed the emergence of a new geopolitics in the Amazon, which has gone from being simply an agricultural frontier, founded on the intensive exploitation of the natural environment, to a frontier of the preservation of biodiversity (BECKER, 2004; ESTERCI; SCHWEICKARDT, 2010).

In the midst of the conflictive Amazonian geopolitics, Brazilian legislation, even if timidly, is giving way to incorporate the pressures of socio-territorial movements, unlike the period when the Amazon was understood as a huge demographic void (1950). The present territorial recognitions of the traditional populations are configured as an advance for the National State. In recognizing the territorial rights of traditional populations, the II PNRA has become a milestone in the struggle for land use (MAIA, 2010). However, according to Estevam and Stedile (2013) land concentration has intensified, particularly in the Amazon, even though measures in favor of agrarian reform have been adopted. This reality is also identified in the Marajó, a unique area of the Amazon Region, where the presence of traditional populations predominates, which currently has generated a conflict between the monopolistic and the collective use of the territory, due to the expansion of monocultural business in Marajó, especially rice cultivation (CRUZ, SILVA, 2014).

The history of the Marajó region shows that the general movement of the economy has always implied favoring the formation of large properties, subjugating blacks, indigenous peoples and other local families, and exploiting the natural environment for the generation of wealth, without, however, causing improvements in the living conditions of traditional Marajó populations. On the contrary, it has entailed serious threats to the local way of life. However, nowadays, other dynamics of land use seem to favor the families that have historically been cast aside by state interventions, since it is stated that the current National Plan for Agrarian Reform has been the instrument with the greatest effect on local populations, as it involves thousands of families struggling for recognition of their territorialities.

In order to better understand the execution of the current PNRA and its developments in this region of Amazonia, a comparative study involving the three Geographical Microregions (MRG) of Marajó, namely: Portel, Furos de Breves and Arari. These MRGs were defined in the Regional Division of Brazil in 1989, due to their particularities related to agricultural, industrial, mining and fishery production, demonstrating a greater diversity and dynamism compared to previous regional divisions (DIVISÃO, 2017). This study seeks to understand and discuss the II PNRA in each Marajoara

micro-region, deliberating the reasons that explain the differential impact of this action in Marajó. For this purpose, bibliographical, documentary and field research with social movements was carried out in the region. For Vidal (2013), comparative studies are being widely used to analyze processes of social change and public policies, fundamentally involving historical processes and general theories to explain phenomena in different spaces and times. Comparative studies are also useful to identify aspects that are similar or different, general or particular. According to Nascimento Júnior (2017), it is important to understand that social processes can be compared in three ways: (i) universalization (generalizations, broader considerations), (ii) particularization (elements of differentiation, contrast) and (iii) singularization (unique characteristics that are not repeated).

After this introduction, the text presents a historical panorama on land policies in Brazil, showing that these policies have favored the latifundia and agribusiness, to the detriment of the rights of traditional populations. Next, the current agrarian policy in the Amazon Region is presented, a context that shows important advances in the territorial recognition of populations excluded from the right to land, indicating a consequent intervention of the National State. Thefollowing section analyses the II PNRA in the Marajó, arguing that this policy has unfolded differently in the three geographic microregions, also due to the socio-spatial formation and the current socio-environmental contexts particular to each microregion. The considerations point to the need to continue with the recognition of the territories of the Marajó’s traditional populations, since it is understood that a true recognition of these populations has not yet been reached by the national agrarian policy.

AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN BRAZIL: A HISTORICAL PANORAMA

Brazilian agrarian policy has always favored the formation of large properties, monocultures and the export market. A historical survey of certain land policies in Brazil demonstrates the historic backing of a model that has been very harmful to traditional populations.

The process of formation of private property in Brazil began in the 1500s. Brazilian lands were under the dominion of the Kingdom of Portugal through the Hereditary Captaincies, particularly in the period 1530-1822, when great extensions of land were granted to Portuguese owners. This process is the basis for the agricultural model of exploitation based on slave labor, the monoculture of sugarcane, the large extensions of land (latifundium) and the export-driven market in Brazil.

The extinction of land concessions through Sesmarias in 1822 led to several irregular possessions, as until 1850, the Brazilian State did not have any legal instruments in its legislation that would order land tenure. This period is known as regime de posses and was characterized by the increase in the number of squatters, large properties and the formation of local oligarchies (TRECCANI, 2012). Thus, the year 1850 is another milestone in the national agrarian question, when the Lei de Terras was passed to put an end to the chaos created in years of absence of legal instruments. According to Luiz Filho and Fontes (2009), the regime of the Lei de Terras (1850-1889), brought as an innovation the possibility of delimitating rural property in Brazil, understanding that lands that were not sesmarias or recognized as owned would be regarded as "Terras Devolutas" or "Public Lands". This Law revalidated the letters of sesmarias, legitimized irregular possession, as well as the purchase and donation of lands, therefore favoring the concentration of land. In addition, the productivity of land was used as a reference to proceed with the delimitation and tenure, which excluded the right of non-productive family groups to the use of their territories, since they are not validated solely by production, but by their traditional use for social reproduction.

In republican Brazil (1889), the legitimization of land ownership was put on the backburner, as part of the Union's responsibility in the issuance of properties passed to the state level in 1891. With this, it was up to the state governments to elaborate their own land policies. Treccani (2012) emphasizes that States inherited serious problems left by previous processes, especially in Pará, where in this period land titles already reached 13% of its territorial extension. With the Brazilian Constitution of 1891, the concept of private property became absolute and inviolable, says Norder (2014). Thus, alienation could only happen with the owner's consent, regardless of the state's initiative. For this author, it was from the 1934 Constitution that the right to property was expressly conditioned to collective rights and social interest, which could give the less favored social classes access to land. The Vargas dictatorship, however, excluded this condition from the 1937 Constitution. However, almost ten years later, it was in the 1946 Constitution that the possibilities of expropriation became wider².

The 1960s in Brazil mark a unique political context. The country experienced intense popular mobilizations in favor of social reforms. With the creation of the Statute of the Rural Worker (1963), rural workers obtained civil rights like employment cards, union organization, and minimum salary, among others. With this, the desired model would be to transform latifundia into modern and efficient companies, a change that would be encouraged by the Federal Government (In 1962, the Superintendency of Agrarian Reform (SUPRA) became an official organ to plan and implement agrarian reform in the country, including expropriation recognized in Law). João Goulart, the President of Brazil at the time, signed decree 53,700 / 64 that appropriated large properties for the purpose of agrarian reform, with the intention of distributing land. Goulart also proposed the termination of the previous indemnities and the replacement of the payment in cash by public debt securities³. In April 1964, the military took over political leadership in Brazil, proposing to combat inflation, change foreign policy and modernize agriculture. Later that year, Law 4,504 / 64, the Land Statute⁴, was passed, which, among other things, aimed at promoting the distribution of property, respecting the peculiarities of the Country, reducing the rural exodus and modernizing agricultural policy. However, even if this legal mechanism pointed out ways to distribute land taking its social function in to account, in practice it consolidated the concentration of land and wealth. According to Norder (2014), the military government did not prioritize expropriations for agrarian reform purposes. It backed investments in the modernization of large properties through agricultural policies (subsidized credit, insurance, technological research, technical assistance, minimum price policy and infrastructure), as well as the advance of large properties into indigenous areas, particularly in Mato Grosso and Rondônia⁵.

As a result of the Federal Constitution of 1988, a legal framework that promoted the guarantee of political freedoms - even with its contradictions in reducing access to land to a production medium, or "productive land", which in part inhibited territorial struggles and progress in agrarian reform (SAUER, 2013) - the 1990s marked the moment in the national political conjuncture in which juridical and political mechanisms were created to recognize the areas required by these populations⁶. In this way, together with the projects of family settlements and the recognition of indigenous lands, the recognition of remaining quilombos lands and the creation of Conservation Units are marks of the State’s current conception in relation to territorial law and are considered by the II PNRA, which is an important mechanism of Brazilian agrarian policy for the Amazon today.

The II PNRA, launched in 2003, sought to resume the trajectory of the First National Plan, which, according to Brasil (2005), aimed to change the Brazilian agrarian structure by guaranteeing agricultural and environmental policies (credit, agricultural insurance, assistance technical, commercialization, agroindustrialization, environmental recovery and preservation). It is important to emphasize that in relation to previous models, in terms of agrarian policy the II PNRA represented an innovation by not having a single model for all regions, but one that can be adapted to each biome. Another important feature of this Plan was the recognition of the specificities of rural and traditional communities and sustainable territorial development in its approach. The effects of this policy in the Amazonian space are considered below.

THE CURRENT BRAZILIAN AGRICULTURAL POLICY IN THE AMAZONIAN CONTEXT

In general, until the late 1950s, the Amazon was still seen as a sparsely populated and poorly integrated space from the rest of the country. With the discourse of developing the Amazon, the Military Government favored the consolidation of large properties and deforestation, while disregarding the traditional populations who historically inhabited this space. As an example, according to Esterci and Schweickardt (2010), colonization policies and incentives for large-scale agricultural production started to occupy "frontier areas", with an intensive use of the natural environment (mainly forests, soil and water). This model was promoted by the State, mainly through the Superintendence of the Development of the Amazon, SUDAM⁷ and INCRA. This promoted contradictions between the policies encouraged by the state and the populations present in the region, since the state was not able to understand the meaning of use of space as carried out by these traditional populations. The conception of land tenure of the governments at the time was strictly related to the legal and productive aspects of the rural establishment (lot), and not to the varied forms of occupation and land use. However, Esterci and Schweickardt (2010) point out that in the current context there is a process of "environmentalization" of territorial management in the Amazon. "Environmentalization" is not just a modern management concept. It reveals how social actors and the State observe the environmental issue, leading some institutions linked to environmental management to treat the territories of traditional populations as a strategy of public policy action. Understood as public policy instruments claimed by local groups, the 2000 National System of Conservation Units (SNUC) - which is part of the II PNRA - proposes two models of Territory: Extractive Reserve (RESEX) and Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS). The idea of RESEX was based on indigenous territories, not intended to be divided into family lots and so not subject to sale nor to private ownership. Researchers from the human and biological sciences, linked to the environmental movement, developed the RDS models, constituted as ecological stations.

The Marajó did not remain indifferent to this whole process. For Souza (2007) it is during the period of the Military Government that land concentration was consolidated in the Marajó, with new landowners emerging (national and foreign companies) that defined new rules and mechanisms of coercion of the labor force of the local populations. However, this region of Amazonia did not suffer strong interference from the process of regional colonization that took place in the 1970s, promoted by the official policy, such as the occupation on the Trans-Amazonian Highway, in the State of Pará, by northeasterners and rural entrepreneurs from other regions of the Country. The region was inserted through the export of primary products, intensifying the extraction of açaí palm heart (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) and wood. However, Souza (2007) points out that the internalization of the environmental issue into Brazilian agrarian legislation has led to a differentiated intervention on the part of the National State, especially when it comes to recognizing the territorial rights of traditional populations, such as the creation of Extraction Settlements (PAE) and the RESEX. These modalities reflect the current situation of Brazilian agrarian policy in Amazonian contexts.

The decade of the years 2000 is significant when pointing to social movements as protagonists by the recognition of the traditional territories in the Marajó. The involvement of local leaders with institutional actors linked to the theme (the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), the Superintendence of the Patrimony of the Union (SPU) and INCRA), produced claims and propositions for the process of territorial planning in the Marajó.in the framework of the "Meetings on Community Forest Management in the Estuary of the Amazon River". The matters discussed in these meetings indicated a process of recognition of land ownership based on local social control. The Amazon River Estuary Forum (FAE) was created as a strategy to influence the management of territorial planning actions, as a representative entity - made up of community leaders, rural union leaders of Marajó, the Federation of Agricultural Workers and environmental and land tenure bodies. This social instrument was to lead the proposals for a special land policy for traditional populations, with principles of sustainability and the conservation of forests. The FAE had some interesting success in its work, becoming a primordial instrument in the consolidation of the proposals discussed with the social movements. This Forum sought to occupy spaces on different working groups that discussed the development of Marajó, mainly the Management Committee for land regularization on the floodplains, coordinated by the Regional Management of Patrimony of the Union - GRPU-SPU). This is the analytical matrix through which the action of the II PNRA in the Marajó will be analyzed.

THE II NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL REFORM PLAN IN MARAJÓ

The Marajó is known nationally for its natural beauties, its social problems and for the distinction of being a region of highly concentrated land ownership. This history began in 1721, when the Portuguese appropriated large tracts of land, assuring them more than 50 sesmarias in the Territory. According to Treccani (2012), this type of arrangement did not provoke strong changes in the area that belongs to the current State of Pará, since only 1,92% of the state area was tenured during the colonial period, however, the Marajó region was totally divided into sesmarias. The origins of the latifundia in the Marajó date from this historical period (BRASIL, 2007). In contrast to the dynamics of the indigenous populations of this period, this territorial development caused strong socioeconomic changes and was mainly based on livestock farming in areas of natural arable land and in the extraction of plants from forest areas. At that time, the Marajoara extractivist economy determined the population distribution on the islands, forming small villages on the banks of the rivers and streams. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the extraction of latex (the raw material in the manufacture of rubber) was leading to a particular socioeconomic dynamic in the Marajó region. The areas of greatest latex extraction during the golden periods of this system in the Amazon were located in this region. Forced labor, especially of Indians and Blacks, under the yoke of the "boss," determined the economic system of the time. During this period, land concentration intensified, especially in the forest areas where the rubber plantations were located. With the crisis of the rubber economy, the farmers, once involved in the exploitation of latex, once again turned their attention to cattle raising, with an emphasis on buffalo breeding (SOUZA, 2007). This historical synthesis of the occupation in the Marajó is elementary to note the effects of the II PNRA in the current reality of this corner of the Amazon.

The Marajó region has a strategic geopolitical position at the mouth of the Amazon River and is also bathed by the Atlantic Ocean, which gives it an estuarine appearance (IPEA, 2015). The territorial extension of the Marajó is approximately 104,140 km², with a population estimated at 548,634 inhabitants (in 2017), with Breves and Portel being the only municipalities with more than 50,000 inhabitants (99,896 and 60,322 inhabitants, respectively) (IBGE, 2017). Due to the regionalization created by the IBGE in 1989, the Marajó is considered a mesoregion and is subdivided into three geographic microregions: Portel, Furos de Breves and Arari (Figure 01).

Figure 1
Geographical Microregions of Marajó

Until the mid-1990s, the areas registered as agricultural establishments made up around 25.8% (2.69 million hectares) of the entire Marajó, with establishments with up to four fiscal modules (79% of the total registered) occupying less than 10% of the total registered area (a fiscal module in Marajó it is on average equivalent to 70 ha). Meanwhile, establishments with more than 15 fiscal modules (11%) accounted for around 80% of the total registered area. Based on this information, official documents indicated that the land ownership structure in Marajó was heavily concentrated (BRASIL, 2007; IPEA, 2015). During the same period, areas not registered as agricultural establishments in Marajó constituted about 74.2% (7.72 million hectares) of the extension of this Meso-region, thus understood as then vacant and collected lands and Conservation Units, therefore, a space secularly occupied by traditional populations and where the Official Policy in question is currently implemented.

Analyzing data from the current National Agrarian Reform Plan, it is possible to trace an even more detailed and up-to-date contextualization of the land dynamics in Marajó. According to INCRA (2015b), in total 147 extractive settlement projects (PAE) and 05 Conservation Units (UC) have been created since 2003, covering more than 22% of the whole territory (≈ 2.35 million hectares)⁸. This type of land use had already reached 25,590 families by the year 2015. The RESEX and PAE models are not the only forms of planning in this region - there are state parks and quilombola areas. In general, it has been projected that 26% (2.7 million hectares) of Marajó is inserted in land policies (INSTITUTO PEABIRU, 2013). Also, the Superintendence of the Patrimony of the Union (SPU), which develops territorial planning actions in areas that are not under litigation, carries out the Our Várzea program, which registers families present in the areas of floodplains and islands located in federal rivers for the emission of Sustainable Use Authorization Terms (TAUS). A total of 26,751 TAUS were issued in Marajó, until 2015 (IPEA, 2015).

When charting the evolution of the II PNRA, it is identified that until 2007 this program’s numbers in the Marajó were more timid, around 35 ECPs. The role of social movements and the creation of the Citizenship Territory Program in 2008, which proposed to universalize access to basic social programs, led to improvements in land tenure in Marajó, and in 2008 there were more than 55 PAEs. Only 2 PAEs benefiting 299 families were created in 2014, showing the timid progress of this action; after 2015 no further PAEs or UCs were created. This is not due to a lack of need for more families and areas to be included in the current PNRA - since about 3/4 (5 million hectares) of Marajó’s territorial space still has not been included in this type of territorial recognition - but is the result of institutional incapacity to continue the action.

The numbers become more reflexive when analyzed from the approach to the three MRGs in Marajó, as they reflect significant differences when implementing this national agrarian policy. For a better understanding and visualization of the disparities in the execution of the II PNRA in Marajó, the data related to the actions deriving from the II PNRA were specialized and detailed in Table 01.

Table 1
the II PNRA in the three geographic microregions in the territory of Marajó

MRG	População	Área (ha)	%*	II PNRA
				Área (ha)	%**	Famílias	%***
Portel	149.485	4.509.641,2	43,3	678.006,2	15,03	3.856	15,07
Furos de Breves	225.900	3.009.455,7	28,9	1.589.724,5	52,82	16.456	64,31
Aran	173.249	2.894.895,9	27,8	84.164,3	2,91	5.278	20,63

IBGE (2015)INCRA (2015b)
• ^*
  In relation to the territory of Marajó.
• ^**
  In relation to the territorial extension of the MRG.
• ^***
  In relation to the families recognized in Marajó

As can be seen in Table 01 and Figure 02 (below), the II PNRA concentrated on the Furos de Breves and Portel MRG, with the highest concentrations of this action being in the Southwest part of the Island. The explanation for these disparities in the implementation of this policy must be sought in the socio-spatial formation and the socio-environmental particularity of these microregions. Intensive forestry (wood and palm heart) in the microregions of Portel and Furos de Breves, the secular formation of the large farms in Arari - and nowadays the advance of the agricultural frontier (rice cultivation), and the historical clientelism in Brazil permeate the socio-spatial and environmental contexts in which this policy has been implemented.

Figure 2
Spatial distribution of the II PNRA in Marajó (2015)

Authors such as Fernandes (2015) criticize this type of agrarian reform, calling it "conservative", because even though the areas and families included in national agrarian policy are significant, it has not been able to change land concentration in Brazil. However, even if this policy does not change the problem of land concentration, its importance is undoubtable, since the legal recognition of these areas is a debt that the State owes to the populations that historically occupy the Brazilian territories, in particular, spaces such as the Marajoara, marked on the one hand by the latifundia, and, on the other, by an huge population that was on the margins of public policies, especially the agricultural ones, since their territories were not legally recognized. This subject is dealt with in the subitems below.

THE CONTEXT OF THE II PNRA IN THE PORTEL MICROREGION: THE CONTINUITY OF THE LOGGING BUSINESS LOGIC

The Portel microregion consists of the municipalities of Bagre, Gurupá, Melgaço and Portel, with a population of 149,485 inhabitants and 43.3% (4,509,641.2 hectares) of the territorial extension of Marajó (IBGE, 2017), occupying the largest portion of this Meso-region. The Portel microregion contains the RUP Itatupã-Baquiá (Gurupá Municipality), RESUR Gurupá-Melgaço (Melgaço and Gurupá), as well as FLONA Caxiuanã. Regarding the PAEs, the Portel micro-region has an area of thousand hectares, distributed in 25 Projects. Thus, the National Agrarian Reform Policy occupies 15.3% of the territorial extension of this Microregion (678 thousand hectares) and 15.07% of the families (3,856) recognized in Marajó (Table 02).

Table 2
Numbers of the II PNRA in the microregion of Portel (Marajó-Para-2015).

PROJECTS OF EXTRACTIVIST STTLEMENTES (PAE)
			Área
Município	Quant.	Área (ha)	(%)*	Famílias	Famílias (%)**
Bagre	09	32.207,1	0,71	514	2,01
Gurupá	06	328.196,2	7,28	1.349	5,27
Melgaço	08	71.816,2	1,59	601	2,35
Portel	02	37.985,3	0,84	510	1,99
Total	25	470.204,8	10,43	2.974	11,62
CONSERVATION UNITS (UC)
Gurupá	01	64.735	1,44	350	1,37
Gurupá e Melgaço	01	143.066,5	3,17	532	2,08
Total	02	207.801,5	4,61	882	3,45
TOTAL GERAL		678.006,2	15,03	3.856	15,07

INCRA (2015b)
• ^*
  In relation to the territorial extension of the MRG of Portel.
• ^**
  In relation to the families recognized in Marajó.

Part of the extension of this Microregion is located in the continental portion of the Marajó and is characterized by dense terra firma and varzea floodplain forests, which has resulted in great interest on the part of logging companies. According to data organized by Cruz (2017), logging had its peak in the 1990s, when accounted for 78.64% of Marajó's GDP, but, from this period onwards, with pressure from environmental agencies and declining forest stocks, activity has declined sharply. In the 2000s, logging companies suffered a reduction in their extractive activities due to the 2008 global financial crisis (IPEA, 2015) and by environmental legislation that, to a certain extent, has inhibited illegal logging in those areas. However, it still accounts for 58.53% of the vegetal exploitation in the entire region of Marajó - it is identified that logging is mainly concentrated in the MRG Portel and Furos de Breves, with emphasis on the municipality of Portel.

Historically, Portel's Microregion has been marked by conflicts between local communities and companies competing for the use of natural resources (SILVA, 2009). These companies have given rise to serious socio-environmental problems, especially for local people who have long sought to structure themselves in other forms of income generation, rather than exploitation degrading the natural environment. One example is the social movement of the municipality of Gurupá organized by the Union of Rural Workers, which according to Silva (2009) has demanded socioeconomic alternatives, not only in the right to use and possess the territory, but also for the consolidation of forest management, hunting and fishing in community parameters.

Even with the efforts of organized civil society, conflicts still persist in this region, since corporate forestry is intense in the areas bordering the municipalities of Senador José Porfírio, Porto de Moz, Itupiranga and Oeiras do Pará. Given this, the poor performance of the II PNRA, especially in the municipality of Portel, reinforces the continuation of the dynamics of environmental degradation that has led the families to reduce the practice of local productive activities (small-scale cassava cultivation, fruit extractivism, hunting) and continue to clear the forest to develop economic activities. Faced with the possibility of generating an immediate income through the extraction of wood, families opt for this activity to the detriment of those their normal practice. Companies, in turn, use strategies such as equipment (chainsaw and boats) and fuel and use of local labor for illegal logging. Cases of illegal logging are still constant in this Microregion.

In a strong dispute over the differentiated use of the territory, the social movement through local rural unions seeks to articulate with responsible bodies (INCRA, SPU, IBAMA and the State Secretariat of Environment and Sustainability - SEMAS-PA) to allow the recognition of these areas. However, these institutions have low synergies between them, making procedures more complex for families⁹.

Despite the presence of Extractive Settlement Projects and Conservation Units, the logging business logic continues as a structuring force in Portel's micro-region. Ordinance No. 361, of September 8, 2017, Ministry of Environment, in its Art. 1º declared the municipality of Portel as a member of the list of priority municipalities for actions to prevent, monitor and control deforestation (DIÁRIO, 2017).

FUROS DE BREVES: THE PROTAGONISM OF SOCIOTERRITORIAL MOVEMENTS IN MARAJÓ

This Microregion is located in the central part of Marajó and consists of the municipalities of Afuá, Anajás, Breves, Curralinho and São Sebastião da Boa Vista, with a territorial extension of 3,009,456 ha (28.9% of Marajó extension) and a population of 225,900 inhabitants, according to IBGE (2017). The Furos de Breves microregion has forest characteristics similar to the Portel microregion, which in previous years, besides wood, aroused the interest of businessmen in the açaí palm heart (Euterpe oleracea Mart.). Silva (2009) affirms that logging and palm companies have used different strategies to control large tracts of land and thus obtain a supply of these raw materials, such as the purchase of third-party land, legal assignment by third parties (lending) and lease agreements. With the control of large tracts of land, the companies were able to present a large forest reserve and then obtain a release from IBAMA to exploit areas of wood and / or palm heart. The author further emphasizes that, in this period (1980s-90s), it was more important to control the use of local labor than to have large tracts of land.

Unlike the period described above, the economic interest in the açaí fruit has increased, mainly by local families who develop the extraction activity motivated by the possibility of an immediate financial return. The relationship with technical-productive elements, such as technical assistance and agricultural credit, which have changed the productive logics, have affected the region's peculiar extractive system, which, due to possible scarcity in the natural environment, is introducing technical elements, such as productive management to their productive systems (CARVALHO, SILVA, 2015). In addition to the greater relation with technical-productive elements, in the periods of peak of extraction of açaí (months of July to November) a specific territorial reorganization has been identified, caused by the interest of the families in the spaces where açaizais predominate (SILVA, 2013), resulting in various conflicts on a community level. The study by Silva (2013) reports that in the harvest period of the açaí fruit, local and external actors in the localities call themselves the owners of the areas of açaizais due to their interest in the product generating foreign exchange. These dynamics differ from the off-season period (January to May), when there is no fruit production, therefore, no possibility of financial gains through the extraction of the açai fruit.

The numbers of the II PNRA in this Microregion indicate the best performances among the three Marajó microregions. The proportion of 52.82% (about 1.6 million hectares) of the territory of Furos de Breves is already inserted in this policy, and 64.31% (16,456) of families have already been recognized throughout Marajó. There are already 87 PAEs in Furos de Breves, in an area of 1.31 million hectares and 15,443 families have been registered in this modality of land regularization alone (Table 03).

Table 3
Numbers of the II PNRA in the microregion of Furos de Breves (Marajó-Para-2014).

PROJECTS OF EXTRACTIVIST STTLEMENTES (PAE)
			Área
Município	Quant.	Área (ha)	(%)*	Famílias	Famílias (%)**
Afuá	18	534.388,9	17,76	4.380	17,12
Anajás	02	120.153	3,99	238	0,93
Breves	21	520.429	17,29	5.956	23,27
Curralinho	28	52.813	1,75	1.907	7,45
São Sebastião da Boa Vista	18	82.559	2,74	2.962	11,57
Total	87	1.310.342,8	43,54	15.443	60,35
CONSERVATION UNITS (UC)
Breves	01	94.463,9	3,14	398	1,56
Curralinho e São Sebastião da Boa Vista	01	184.917,8***	6,14	615	2,4
Total	02	279.381,7	9,28	1.013	3,96
TOTAL GERAL		1.589.724,7	52.82	16.556	64,28

INCRA/2015b
• ^*
  In relation to the territorial extension of the MRG of Furos de Breves.
• ^**
  In relation to the families recognized in Marajó.

This positive performance contributes to a transformation in the relationships of power of possession of the natural environment, creating a contrast with the previous historical period (1980-90), in which logging companies denominated themselves as owners of these areas. For Souza (2007) and Silva (2013), the intervention of the policy of ordering land ownership currently creates other conditions that are favorable to the autonomy of these families, overcoming the situation of semi-servitude to which they were once subjected.

The Mapuá (Breves) and Terra Grande - Pracuúba (Curralinho and São Sebastião da Boa Vista) RESEXs are the two Conservation Units in this Microregion. These Units present a historical context of local families' struggle for control of the territory, since the areas that today belong to these RESEXs were previously recognized as belonging to large landowners who exploited wood and palm hearts. However, through various disputes (daily and legal), this space was recognized as an Extractive Reserve and includes several families.

The research data indicate that this performance is linked to the strong demands of the rural union movements from INCRA. The union organization has facilitated the actions of this body, mainly in the execution, since the families are dispersed along the rivers and streams with difficult access and given INCRA’s structural limitations body (shortage of vessels, limited number of professionals, etc.). Due to the efforts of local social movements that continue to intervene, the Furos de Breves micro-region presents the best performance in numbers when compared to the other MRGs in Marajó. However, despite the movement on the ground being active, the Agrarian Reform Policy is ineffective, since advances are timid in the areas of transportation, housing, technical assistance and credit. When present, they are disjointed from a local development strategy.

According to Maia (2011) another factor that explains the positive performance of this policy in the regions of the Islands in Pará is related to political -electoral interests. This has reinforced the clientelistic atmosphere in these regions. This factor cannot be ignored with regard to Marajó, which is also marked by a clientelist tradition, since it is possible to correlate the advance or inertia of the agrarian policy to the political leadership of the state and federal legislative agendas and their influence on the public machine linked to agrarian policy in the region. However, the asymmetry in the execution of the II PNRA in the Marajó should be sought also in the concentrated land structure and in the presence of an agrarian elite in the region of Portel and Arari.

THE II PNRA IN ARARI: PERMANENCE OF THE LATIFÚNDIO AND THE EXPANSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL FRONTIER IN MARAJÓ

IBGE data (2017) indicate that the population of the Arari microregion is 173,249 inhabitants and its territorial extension is of 2,558,341 hectares; 24.57% of the extension of the Marajoara territory. This geographic space is constituted by the municipalities of Cachoeira do Arari, Chaves, Salvaterra, Santa Cruz do Arari, Soure, Muaná and Ponta de Pedras. Its characteristics are of natural arable land formed basically by shrubs, except for the municipalities of Muaná and Ponta de Pedras, which despite the presence of fields in their territories, are characterized by dense forests. It is located to the east of the Island of Marajó, bathed by the Atlantic Ocean, and has an exuberant scenery of beaches, with tourist attractions like the renowned buffalo milk cheese, the animal also provides transportation for the locals and tourists. The centuries-old buffalo breeding farms serve as lodging for those who visit the Microregion.

The land ownership is characterized by cattle ranching, which comes from colonial times, when Capitanias were distributed to the illustrious families of the Island (SILVA JÚNIOR, 2014), initiating the land structure based on large properties. According to the author's estimates, in 1908, in the Republican period, there were 19 land owners of an area of 1,989,780 hectares, 77.78% of the territory of this Microregion. To emphasize the importance of this activity, according to Cruz (2017), until the beginning of the 1960s, Marajoara cattle ranching accounted for 85% of Belem's meat supply. However, in 1972 it accounted for only 40%. Even so, until 1970, livestock production stood out in the region's GDP, with 54%, followed by vegetal extraction with 36%, fishing with 5.8% and agriculture with 2.9%. However, in the 1990s, there was a sharp change in this situation, indicating that cattle ranching (21.35%) had lost space to vegetable extractivism (78.64% of the region's GDP). In the mid-2000s, the agricultural sector had 26.1% and fishing stood out, with 54% of GDP in Marajó (CRUZ, 2017).

Even though the Arari microregion has a significant number of traditional populations, such as the remaining quilombo and extractive and riverine communities, this region has the smallest area included in the II PNRA in the Marajó region. The only Conservation Unit in this micro-region is the RESET Marinha de Soure and it only covers the mangrove area, where crab extraction can be carried out. However, it did not include all the fishing territory, which has a strong dynamic in this municipality. Even with the legal recognition of this RESEX, local farmers refuse to recognize the delimitation of this area, creating serious conflicts (INSTITUTO PEABIRU, 2013).

The Arari microregion also has the smallest area recognized by the PAE among the other Marajó microregions (56.7 thousand hectares distributed in 35 projects), and the municipalities of Salvaterra, Santa Cruz do Arari and Soure have not yet been included in this modality. In terms of families included in the PAE, this Microregion has a larger number than the Portel micro-region. However, this exception is due to the Municipality of Muaná, which includes 2,000 families in 28 PAEs. Thus, it should be pointed out that the municipalities that have natural arable land, where the agricultural estates are present and which concentrate the lands of this Microregion, are the areas least contemplated by the policy when compared to municipalities with extensive forest areas in Marajó. Only 3.29% (84.16 thousand hectares) of the Arari are included in the national agrarian policy (Table 04).

Table 4
Numbers of the II PNRA in the microregion of Arari (Marajó-Para-2014).

PROJECTS OF EXTRACTIVIST SETTLEMENTS (PAE)
			Área
Município	Quant.	Área (ha)	(%)*	Famílias	Famílias (%)**
Cachoeira do Arari	02	4.429,9	0,17	446	1,74
Chaves	02	4.813,5	0,19	67	0,26
Muaná	28	42.302,3	1,65	2.153	8,41
Ponta de Pedras	03	5.155,6	0,2	422	1,65
Salvaterra	-	-	-	-	-
Santa Cruz do Arari	-	-	-	-	-
Soure	-	-	-	-	-
Total	35	56.700,7	2,22	3.088	12,07
CONSERVATION UNITS (UC)
Soure	01	27.463,6	1,07	2.190	8,56
Total	01	27.463,6	1,07	2.190	8,56
TOTAL GERAL		84.164,3	2,91	5.278	20,63

INCRA/2015b
• ^*
  In relation to the territorial extension of the MRG of Arari.
• ^**
  In relation to the families recognized in Marajó.

The timidity of the National Agrarian Policy associated to the presence of latifundia and cheap lands made it propitious for the expansion of large-scale rice cultivation in this Marajó Microregion, especially the municipalities of Cachoeira do Arari and Salvaterra tha already have projects in place and are expanding the area under cultivation¹⁰. This is leading to conflicts with local people who have not yet obtained their state-recognized property rights, leaving them in vulnerable legal conditions. An example is the process of deterritorialization in the communities’ remaining quilombos. The farmers advocate their enterprises using the discourse of the economic benefits that this monoculture will bring to the region, such as job creation and the supply to the local market. However, it has been identified that the logic of family production, especially the practice of extractivism, is being affected by this capital-intensive agroeconomic activity and the exploitation of the natural environment (CRUZ, SILVA, 2014). Allied to this, the interest of greater political and environmental controversy by the implantation of the soybean in the marajoara region has been identified. It should be noted that these actions also take place through the concessions and permissions granted by the Government of the State of Pará.

CONCLUSION

The three geographic microregions have different socio-spatial contexts, as do the extreme differences in the numbers of the II PNRA in the microregions of Furos de Breves and Arari. It is evident that the limitations of this Policy in Marajó allows: (i) illegal logging, especially in areas not covered by the policy; (ii) a platform for political-electoral interest and political clientelism, which is historical in Marajó; and (iii) the expansion of the agricultural frontier, especially in Arari, raising the risk of conflicts and environmental problems. This is true even though the Meso-region has been recognized as an environmental protection area since the end of the 1980s, but so far this policy has been ineffective, as the APA has no management plan and its Management Council was only formed in 2016.

The Portel microregion continues remains under the historic pressure of logging. About 80% of this area is not contemplated by the National Agrarian Reform Policy, which allows the continuation of deforestation. Logging continues to be strengthened in this Microregion and the National State has supported this dynamic, principally through the forest concession process initiated in 2016 in FLONA Caxiuanã. The micro-region of Furos de Breves has the highest percentage of its territory included in the Policy, as well as the largest number of families included in Marajó so far. These achievements are due to the local social movements organized under the Amazon River Estuary Forum - FAE, but the deepening of clientelism has distorted the success of these numbers. There is also a lack of progress in the quality of services related to agrarian reform (housing, credit, technical assistance, contextualized education, basic sanitation, etc.). The Arari microregion is the most unfavorable context among the three microregions. The low percentage of its territory included in the II PNRA, which is also due to the presence of the local landed oligarchies, has also favored the expansion of rice monoculture, which is advancing in Marajó’s arable regions, to the detriment of the recognition of the region’s population. Thus, it is affirmed that contradictions between the agricultural frontier and the preservation of biodiversity coexist in Marajó, as well as clientelism as a form of political control; realities also present elsewhere in the Amazon.

The recognition of the territorial rights of the traditional populations and the achievements envisaged from II PNRA are achievements resulting from the greater participation of civil society in the actions of the State. However, even though the recognition of the traditional populations is a political advance, this study has indicated that there is still a lot of room for the development of this policy in Marajó, especially in the MRGs of Portel and Arari.

Finally, it is concluded that the success of the II PNRA in the Marajó was the result of the protagonism of the socio-territorial movements notwithstanding the political-electoral use of this policy by the local political elites.

NOTES

• 1
  In the face of intense processes of social exclusion caused by neoliberal policies, socio-territorial movements (re)construct themselves and develop their practices in spaces of political socialization and the socialization of proposals. Thus, they structure political, social, cultural spaces and so on in different territories and places. This becomes essential for the subjects to try to transform reality. "There is no transformation of reality without the creation of spaces" (FERNADES, 2005, p.32).
• 2
  At that time, they could only happen through public need or social interest and through prior indemnification, which indicates that the logic of transferring public resources to the employer sector is historical in the Brazilian context. Thus, the notion that agrarian reform should go through the process of expropriation and indemnification of landowners was consolidated in Brazil.
• 3
  The reaction against Goulart's government was immediate. With support from the US Government, Goulart was deposed in 1964. A series of repressive measures against the agrarian reform proposed by Goulart, which would later form the Land Statute in 1964 (NORDER, 2014), were taken from the outset.
• 4
  Together with the passing of the Land Statute, the Brazilian Institute of Agrarian Reform (IBRA) and the National Institute of Agrarian Development (INDA) were created. In 1966, a National Plan for Agrarian Reform was instituted through Decree No. 59456, but it was not implemented (INCRA, 2015a).
• 5
  Even with the creation of the National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA), in 1970, the policy implemented was the colonization of the Amazon, with waves of northeasterners occupying roadsides and with companies receiving tax incentives for agricultural projects. Among the results of this policy is the increase in territorial conflicts and the deforestation of the Amazon.
• 6
  In the 1990s, the World Bank's Agrarian Market Reform was limited to a compensatory policy aimed at alleviating social pressure in the countryside and inserting peasants into the market economy this decade was marked by serious conflicts in the countryside, assassinations, and the advance of neoliberalism. For Estevam and Stedile (2013), this proposal was aimed only to inhibit the political rise of the social movements and, thus, to calm the conflicts that arose in the middle of the decade of 1990.
• 7
  SUDAM was created through Bill 5,173 / 1966, with the purpose of promoting regional development through tax exemption for industrial, agricultural and basic services activities. It also promoted agricultural and agricultural activities (SUDAM, 2015).
• 8
  The data analyzed here do not include the National Forest of Caxiuanã (located in Portel and Melgaço), because it is only intended to observe the numbers of the II PNRA. This FLONA was constituted by Decree No. 239 of November 28, 1961 and has an area of 317,946.37 ha (ICMBIO, 2015a).
• 9
  Like the municipality of Gurupá, where there was the overlap of a State Environmental Park and an Extractive Settlement Project (INSTITUTO PEABIRU, 2013), causing impasses for these families. In 2015, INCRA and the 8th District Attorney's Office of Castanhal (PA) signed a Conduct Adjustment Agreement (TAC) to resolve this situation.
• 10
  Cruz (2017) points out that the arrival of electric power energy and optical fiber in 2017, the asphalting of PA 154 (connecting the port of Camará to the headquarters of the municipality of Cachoeira do Arari) and the project for the implementation of the Private Use Terminal (TUP) of the Louis Dreyfus Company, on the Malato Coast (Ponta de Pedras), point to major socio-spatial transformations in this MRG.

REFERÊNCIA

• BRASIL. Casa Civil da Presidência da República. Plano de Desenvolvimento Territorial Sustentável do Arquipélago do Marajó - PDTSAM. Brasília, 2007. 296p.
• BRASIL. Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário - MDA. Instituto De Colonização E Reforma Agrária - INCRA, II Plano Nacional de Reforma Agrária: Paz, produção e qualidade de vida no meio rural Brasília, 2005. 40p. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 24 fev. 2016.
• BECKER, B. Amazônia Geopolítica na virada do III milênio. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Garamond, 2004. 166p.
• CARVALHO, J. P. L.; SILVA, L. M. S. (2015). Lógicas agroextrativistas em contexto de mudanças socioeconômicas no Arquipélago do Marajó - Pará, Amazônia. Revista Brasileira de Agroecologia, v. 10, n. 1, p.50-65.
• CRUZ, B. V. O Alvorecer das indicações geográficas na Amazônia: a “corrida” pela IG do queijo artesanal do Marajó - PA. 2017. 388p. Tese (Doutorado) - Universidade Estadual Paulista, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Presidente Prudente, São Paulo.
• CRUZ, B. V.; SILVA, A. R. Conflito pelo uso do território nos campos marajoaras - Pará: entre o uso monopolista e o uso coletivo do território. Revista do Instituto Histórico e Geográfico do Pará (IHGP), Belém, n. 1, v. 01, p.76-87, jan./jun. 2014.
• DIÁRIO OFICIAL DA UNIÃO. 13/09/2017, nº 176, Seção 1, pág. 69. Portaria nº 361, de 8 de setembro de 2017. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Gabinete do Ministro, 2017.
• DIVISÃO REGIONAL DO BRASIL EM REGIÕES GEOGRÁFICAS IMEDIATAS E REGIÕES GEOGRÁFICAS INTERMEDIÁRIAS: 2017/IBGE. Coordenação de Geografia. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE, 2017. 82p.
• ESTERCI, N.; SCHWEIKARDT, K. Territórios amazônicos de reforma agrária e de conservação da natureza. Boletim de Ciências Humanas. Populações, territorialidades e estado na Amazônia v. 5. n. 1. p.59-78, jan./abr. 2010.
• ESTEVAM, D; STEDILE, J. P. A questão agrária no Brasil: debate sobre a situação e perspectivas da reforma agrária na década de 2000. São Paulo: Expressão Popular, 2013. 242p.
• FERNANDES, B. M. Movimentos socioterritoriais e movimentos socioespaciais: contribuição teórica para uma leitura geográfica dos movimentos sociais. Revista Nera, ano 8, n.6, p.24-34, jan/jun. 2005.
• FERNANDES, B. M. Estados e as políticas agrárias recentes. Revista da Associação Brasileira de Reforma Agrária (ABRA) Edição especial - Questão Agrária e Desigualdades no Brasil II, ano 35, v. 02, p.67-75, 2015.
• GOHN, M. G. Movimentos na contemporaneidade. Revista Brasileira de Educação, v. 16, n. 47. p.333-512, mai-ago. 2011.
• INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE GEOGRAFIA E ESTATÍSTICA - IBGE. Estimativa 2017 (Pará). Disponível em: . Acesso em: 12 jul. 2018.
• INSTITUTO CHICO MENDES PARA A CONSERVAÇÃO DA BIODIVERSIDADE - ICMBIO. Flona de Caxiuanã. Unidades de Conservação - Amazônia Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brasília, 2015a. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 14 mai. 2015.
• INSTITUTO CHICO MENDES PARA A CONSERVAÇÃO DA BIODIVERSIDADE - ICMBIO. Unidades de Conservação. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brasília, 2015b. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 04 set. 2015.
• INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE COLONIZAÇÃO E REFORMA AGRÁRIA - INCRA. História do INCRA Brasília, 2015a. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 14 mai. 2015.
• INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE COLONIZAÇÃO E REFORMA AGRÁRIA - INCRA. Diretoria de obtenção de terras e implantação de projetos de assentamentos. Sistema de Informação de Projetos de Reforma Agrária (SIPRA). Números da Reforma Agrária Relatório: Rel_0227. 16/07/2015, Brasília, 2015b. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 11 jan. 2015.
• INSTITUTO PEABIRU. Ordenamento fundiário de um território verde: aprendizados e desafios de três anos de trabalho (Relatório). Programa Viva Marajó, jan. 2013. 117p.
• INSTITUTO DE PESQUISA ECONÔMICA APLICADA - IPEA. Relatório de Pesquisa Observatório da função socioambiental do Patrimônio da União na Amazônia. Relatório Territorial do Marajó. Rio de Janeiro, 2015. 112p.
• LUIZ FILHO, J.; FONTES, R. M. A formação da propriedade e a concentração de terras no Brasil. Revista de História Econômica e Economia Regional Aplicada, v. 4. n. 7, p.63-85, jul/dez. 2009.
• MAIA, R. O. A política de regularização fundiária nas comunidades ribeirinhas no Pará. In: Encontro da Rede de Estudos Rurais, 3. Curitiba. Anais.. Curitiba: Rede de Estudos Rurais, 2010.
• MAIA, R. O. A política de regularização fundiária e reforma agrária: o PAE nas Ilhas do Pará. 2011. 194 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Planejamento do Desenvolvimento) - Universidade Federal do Pará, Núcleo de Altos Estudos Amazônicos, Belém, Pará.
• NASCIMENTO JÚNIOR, L. Transformações e permanência dos estudos comparados na geografia. Boletim Goiano de Geografia, v. 37, n. 2, 2017. p.302-321.
• NORDER, L. A. C. Controvérsias sobre a reforma agrária no Brasil (1934-1964). Revista NERA, Presidente Prudente, ano 17, n. 24. p.133-145, jan./jun. 2014.
• SAUER, S. Reflexões esparsas sobre a questão agrária e a demanda por terra no século XXI. In: STEDILE, J. P. (Org.) A questão agrária no Brasil: debate sobre a situação e perspectivas da reforma agrária na década de 2000. São Paulo: Expressão Popular, 2013. p.167-187.
• SILVA JÚNIOR, A. F. As organizações patronais rurais no Estado do Pará: evolução e perspectiva. Revista do Instituto Histórico e Geográfico do Pará, Belém, n. 1, p. 88-106, jan/jun. 2014.
• SILVA, E. G. Territorialidades específicas e mudanças fundiárias: o processo de territorialização dos Monteiros do Rio Preto, Município de Afuá, Pará. 2013. Dissertação (Mestrado em Agriculturas Familiares e Desenvolvimento Sustentável) - Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém, Pará.
• SILVA. M. G. Extrativismo empresarial e legislação florestal: estratégias das empresas madeireiras e palmiteiras na apropriação dos recursos florestais nas várzeas da Amazônia. In: Congresso Latinoamericano de Direito Florestal Ambiental, 7, Curitiba. Anais... Curitiba: UFPR, 2009. 7p.
• SOUZA, A. L. Evolução do sistema agrário da mesorregião do Marajó: uma perspectiva sócio-histórica. In: CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE SISTEMAS, 3, 2007, Florianópolis. Anais... Florianópolis: UFSC, out. 2007.
• SUPERINTENDÊNCIA DO DESENVOLVIMENTO DA AMAZÔNIA - SUDAM. Ministério da Integração Nacional. Histórico SUDAM Pará, 2015. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 27 dez. 2017.
• TRECCANI, G. D. O título de posse e a legitimação de posse como formas de aquisição da propriedade Procuradoria Geral do Estado do Pará, Belém, 2012. Disponível em: . Acesso em: 27 dez. 2017.
• VIDAL, J. P. (2013). Metodologia comparativa e estudo de caso. Papers do Naea, Núcleo de Altos Estudos Amazônicos/UFPA, Belém, n. 308, p. 04-33, 2013.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  09 Sept 2019
• Date of issue
  2019

History

• Received
  13 Aug 2018
• Accepted
  31 Sept 2018
• Published
  15 June 2019