DIAGRAMA DE LA SOLUCIÓN PARA EL NODO DE ACCESO ZTE

Plot Sizes and Location of Families

A c cording to their leaders, farmers wanted their plots to be around 22 hectares^. They tried to reconcile their notion of an ideal small farm and the need to allocate as many landless families as possible in the area, which were 350 families (MST, January 1986; July 1988). However, E M A T E R 's economic

^Producers were supposed to have the right to buy their plots after 10 years if their performance was satisfactory.

feasibility study, based primarily on soil quality, indicated that there should be three different farm sizes in the project: 28, 36 and 40 hectares, which would allow settling only around 200 families (EMATER (b) , 1985)^. However, farmers were able to modify EMATER's criteria in part and as a result, 280 families were settled at Vitoria. The average area of the farmers assisted by ASSESOAR was 26.66 hectares, whilst the minimum size was 15 and the maximum 36 hectares^. Plots were only demarcated after the families were transferred from the encampment to the project area. They camped in groups made up by families from the same municipalities they had come from, according to their agreement with ITCF officials. These became the 13 communities named after their respective municipalities

(see table IV.2).

Table IV. 1 - Communities and Number of Farmers Community (*) Number - Percentage

Sao Joao 7 7.9 Coronel Vivida 10 11.2 Ampère 7 7.9 Sao Miguel 5 5.6 Planalto 5 5.6 Medianeira (I) 15 16.9 Medianeira (II) 9 10.1 Capanema (I ) 9 10.1 Capanema (II) 2 2.2 Santa Izabel 5 5.6

Nova Prata (I) 6 6.7

Nova Prata (II) 4 4.6

Dois Vizinhos 5 5.6

source: Survey 1990

^ The project area totalled around 10.000 ha, and is divided into AREA I (8.000 ha) and AREA II (2.000 ha). Around 5.000 ha are considered agricultural land (EMATER, (b) 1985).

^ The 170 families that were left out of Vitoria were allocated to new projects later on (EMATER (a) & (b), 1985).

Project Members

The members of Vitoria da Uniao were selected by the organizations involved in the mobilizations for creating the project namely ASSESOAR, MASTES and CPT (EMATER (a) 1985; CPT, u n d a t e d ) . They came from different municipalities of the West and South-West and Centre-South of Parana. Most of them were migrants from the Southern states of Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina. The majority were Italian and German descendants and native Brazilians, the latter known as

cahoclos. The predominant religion was Roman Catholic, and then

Protestant. Despite these differences, the group had many similarities in terms of culture and values. This included subsistence farming systems, an active communal life, political activism in trade unions, political parties and social movements, which was typical of the region, as seen in chapter I.

Before they came to the project, the majority of members were farmers and only around ten of them were working in the urban area. Most of them (63) were tenant farmers or sharecroppers, a quarter (23) were squatters, and three farmers worked on their parents' land (see table IV.1). Before coming to the project, eighty of them (92%) were not assisted by any extension organization. Only one farmer was assisted by ASSESOAR and two by EMATER. The first time they were assisted by ASSESOAR was during the mobilization for the land occupation, in the municipal commissions. According to their accounts, they joined the movement motivated mainly by other landless farmers, and participated in the process of their own accord.

Table IV.2 - Professional Experience and Type of Landownership

Professional Experience

Type Number Percentage

Farmer 67 77 Rural Worker 18 21 Other 2 2 Former Land Ownership Tenant Farmer 60 70 Squatter 23 26 Family Land 3 3 Source: Survey, 1990.

The majority of farmers in the project (95%) were married, and there was one single member and four widows with children, whose husbands passed away after the project started. The majority of farmers (76%) were literate; those that attended school, studied on average for 4.25 years. There were 15 (20%) farmers who attended school for over seven years and 23 (26%) who were illiterate. The average age of the men was 36 years and the average number of family members was five, and on average three children.

Funding and Services

The investments planned to the project should come exclusively from official credit programmes. It was intended to finance part of roads, community schools and health centres, housing, and agricultural equipment and inputs. It was estimated that the returns from farming would allow beneficiaries to pay for the land, equipment and inputs (EMATER

(a) , 1985). In practice, Vitoria received credit from the federal government through the Agrarian Reform Credit Programme

(PROCERA)^ and the Social Fund (FINSOCIAL)^ (BADEP, 1990). The

4

State government contributed with relief such as food and agricultural inputs during the first year, and credit for installing electricity facilities in producers plots. Services such as, building new roads and bridges and road maintenance were provided by both the state and local governments. The municipal government provided also public transport, teachers,

doctors and nurses for their community schools and health centres (EMATER, July 1987).

All beneficiaries received PROCERA and FINSOCIAL credit to which they were entitled. They decided the distribution criteria and mainly allocated credit according to their priorities (EMATER, March 1986; MST, January 1986; BADEP,

1990). According to EMATER extensionist, Gilmar da Costa, "initially I tried to allocate credit according to my technical requirements, which meant purchasing improved seeds, lime to correct the soil, chemical fertilizers and pesticides. However, I soon realized that they were determined to operate according to their own priorities". Moreover, hardship forced them to use their loans to purchase food and medicines, build their houses and buy home appliances such as cookers and fridges, instead of ploughing the soil and purchasing seeds and equipment. Often delays on credit delivery prevented them from acquiring these inputs in the appropriate time. As Mr. Costa noted, the amount of credit and the manner the government delivered it jeopardized the productive activities.

with 8% per annum interest, in eight years and a grace period of two years (BADEP, 1990).

^ The FINSOCIAL credit required payment of the total loan in five years with 8% per annum interest and grace period of two years (EMATER (b), 1985; March 1986).

Moreover, they did not obtain credit from the state government during the second and third years, due to their conflicts with the government, which is discussed in the next sections. Relief and services were not delivered accordingly which led producers to take actions such as lobbying politicians and government officials. On one occasion, they held two ITCF technicians locked up for two days as a strategy to force the government to deliver food supplies. Beneficiaries had no access to private bank loans as the landownership system prevented them from using the land as collateral. They obtained subsidised credit especially addressed to farmer groups, which was employed to purchase equipment and build seven corn mills and three timber mills. They also received loans from ASSESOAR's revolving fund to build brick ovens to produce charcoal. During the first two years, project members had no credit in local shops. Local entrepreneurs were reluctant to deal with them, since they were seen as outsiders and troublemakers by the locals. Later, the prospect of increasing sales changed the attitude of the local shoppers.

Health and Education

Vitoria was remote and had no infrastruture when it started. Beneficiaries negotiated successfully with the government to set up ten schools that covered an area of three kilometres in diameter, and six medical posts in communities inside the project area. Practically all families had access to a medical doctor and hospital facilities. Also, over 60% of the families (57) had children of school age, and all but five families attended school. Three community schools and three health centres had no staff. The teachers of three schools were

project mothers and beneficiaries. The local council argued that it lacked resources and personnel, but farmers believed that this was a result of the lack of political will to support the project.

Many families experienced difficulties with transportation due to lack of public transport and roads. The distance from health facilities was also a problem as for many families it meant walking around five miles. The idea of setting up ten small community schools to reduce the distance from the plots, a victory won by farmers, created another difficulty since these schools could teach no further than the primary level. Consequently, 15 children were forced to travel over fifteen miles to attend secondary school. This constituted a problem for both parents and children, considering the cost and the difficulties of travelling, particularly on rainy days. Also, for some it meant walking long distances to reach the nearest public transport.

Farming and Economic Alternatives

Producers cultivated mainly subsistence crops such as corn, beans and rice. This was mainly due to the soil and climatic conditions in the area, their familiarity with these crops, requiring less inputs, and serving both subsistence and commercial purposes. Some farmers produced cash crops such as soybean and wheat and the native erva-mate tea (EMATER (b) ,

1985). Agricultural production in Vitoria, however, faced serious difficulties. During the first two years of the project, frost and drought virtually destroyed all crops (EMATER, July 1988). Furthermore, farmers had to contend with low soil fertility and lack of funding, which prevented them

from purchasing seeds and equipment in time. Not surprisingly, the majority of members said agricultural production was insufficient to provide the means of subsistence during the first two years. Crop production and productivity in the first year had not achieved even 30% of its targets (EMATER (b) , 1985).

Animal production was an important activity both in terms of the subsistence of the families and commercially (EMATER

(b), 1985). Purchasing cows constituted their first investment on farming. However, the lack of grazing land, a hostile climate and wilderness, caused around 40% of the cows to perish. The production of milk, eggs and meat were fundamental to meeting subsistence needs. Only a minority produced pigs and poultry commercially and animal production also was behind the targets. Producers farmed collectively but they preferred to farm mainly in their own plots. As agricultural production was low and credit was insufficient, farmers and ASSESOAR extensionists looked for other economic alternatives for the project. One of the alternatives ASSESOAR extensionists proposed was the production of charcoal, which enabled them to utilise native trees that grew on most of the plots. This was the primary source of income for most project members during the first three years of the project. In the fifth year of the project 42 farmers (47%) had brick-ovens on their farms producing charcoal. The collective timber mills also made up for producers difficulties with farming.

Equipment and Assets

Until the fifth year farmers were unable to acquire all the equipment they needed. However, they were able to cultivate their plots by sharing equipment obtained by their associations and community groups. Only two farmers had tractors. This was due partly to the lack of financial means and credit but mainly to their determination to use animal traction. The majority had their own oxen (60%) and ploughs (90%), thus the majority was prepared to cultivate their land using animal traction.

Vitoria beneficiaries were in general unable to construct expensive buildings. Only 23 farmers (26%) had barns, and these were of modest quality. The pigsties and chicken houses were small, built with trees and bamboo. There were rare exceptions however, such as one farmer, Mr. Arno Hauer, who had a large and well-built barn, a tractor and a car, which was mainly a result of assets that he had before the project started. Three of the buildings of the rural associations, where mills and timber cutting plants operated, were considerably better than the others, and two were built of wood and one of bricks but they were also very basic.

Housing and Domestic Appliances

Five years after the project started, all but one family were living in their own houses. Although 90% were wooden houses, their quality was reasonable, considering their needs, and also the type of housing of small farmers in the region. There were on average four rooms per house and most of them had bathrooms and toilets, mainly built inside the house. Before they came to the project, the majority of project members (63%) already had a house, but most left them behind and only a few

farmers were able to sell them. The others had been homeless, 6% lived with their parents, 12% in rented accommodation in towns, and 19% lived in the landowners' houses on farms where they worked. The majority had home appliances such as, radios, television sets, wood and gas cookers, fridges, m o stly acquired after they came to the project. There were a considerable number of farmers that had not acquired more valuable items such as fridges (37), television sets (38) and gas cookers

(47) .

Families had access to fresh water from wells and springs in their plots but only a minority of farmers had their water sources properly protected. Almost all houses (97%) were supplied with electricity, although farmers did not consider it a priority and only invested in this during the third year of the project. The majority (75%) had no difficulties with public transport and most plots (90%) were connected by roads. The state government failed to build some roads that were traced out by the ITCF and INCRA. The conditions of the roads varied according to the volume of traffic, but when it is wet it can become difficult to travel. Farmers could be isolated for weeks in the rainy season.