ESTUDIOS GEOLÓGICOS GEOTÉCNICOS

Benefited by the PNRA

The Nhundiaquara Project is situated in the coastal region of Parana, around 30 kilometres from the capital city Curitiba. In this region farmers have no tradition of participation in social movements. The rural workers trade unions have traditionally been very passive never involved in demonstrations and rarely in negotiations. The fisher people organizations were more aggressive in terms of standing up for their members' interests yet they were also very conservative compared with the 'authentic' trade union movement. The

existing small farmers organizations were basically associations involved in productive activities resulting mainly from EMATER's intervention. Producers were not engaged in the agrarian reform movement until the National Agrarian Reform Plan (PNRA) was created, in 1985 (IPARDES, 1976, 1980, 1983; SEAB, 1984; Branderburg, March 1987) . In that year INCRA expropriated several farms in Parana, including one farm in the municipality of Morretes, to allocate land settlement projects according to the PNRA (EMATER, 1985; MIRAD/INCRA, October 1997).

Until that time, INCRA acknowledged no landless farmers in the region and the farm in Morretes was encouraged to settle landless farmers removed from islands in the Parana River in the west region, as a result of the construction of the Itaipu dam. However, the president of the rural workers trade union of Antonina, Mr. Belizario, a neighbouring town of Morretes, became aware of this situation and decided to claim it from the government to settle landless farmers living in the region.

He identified and registered two hundred landless farmers as a means of sustaining his plea. The president managed to secure the support of the church land commission (CPT), which participated actively in recruiting landless farmers for the project, and persuaded Mr. Belizario to support the creation of the landless movement of the coastal region (MASTEL). He agreed to help create MASTEL because he learned about the other farms being made land settlement projects as a result of the action of the Movement of the Landless Farmers (MST), including the Vitoria da Uniao project. They convinced the government (INCRA) to agree to settle the landless farmers living in the region in Morretes' farm, instead of those from the Parana river islands.

In November 1985, a total of 73 families began to be settled in the area denominated the Nhundiaquara Project (EMATER, 1986; EMATER, August 1987).

However, as EMATER extensionist, Mr. José Rogério da Costa Lopes, stated soon after Nhundiaquara started, the president of the trade union ceased to support the landless movement, MASTEL, and excluded the CPT from the process of implementation. He preferred instead only the support of the State Federation of Small Farmers and Rural Workers Trade Unions (FETAEP) , which was not involved in land disputes, and enjoyed a good relationship with the government. Moreover it constituted an opposition to the authentic trade union movement, which was integrated with the CPT and the MST. From the beginning, negotiations with state government departments concerning the project were carried out by Mr. Belizario. At that point neither the MST nor CPT had any influence over Nhundiaquara. Consequently, the trade union, that was linked to FETAEP, a traditional ally of the government (Branderburg, March 1987), became the only farmer organization with leverage in Nhundiaquara.

Once the government approved the project, it created the municipal land settlement commission (MLSC). The president of the trade union was nominated by the members of the MLSC as the representative of the members of Nhundiaquara. According to Mr. Lopes, who assisted Nhundiaquara, the president of the trade union had a good relationship with the government, was well informed about project matters, and was the only representative of project members. The government intended to make Nhundiaquara a model for other land settlement projects in the state, as Mr. Claus Germer, Parana Secretary of Agriculture

during that period emphasised to the media and the members of the MLSC (SEAB, 1987).

V.2 - SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS

Project Members

Farmers were selected by the municipal land settlement commission. The ITCF technician and EMATER extensionists who worked in Morretes were very influential in the selection because they knew most of the farmers enrolled in the trade union. The commission selected 54 families from the trade union's list and 19 were tenant farmers of the company that cultivated the project area. At the end of the first year, eleven families were substituted for not performing according to I N C R A 's criteria, which is discussed below. Seven of the new families settled on their plots were appointed by EMATER extensionists, two by ITCF and two by the president of the trade union.

The majority of project members came from different places and only became acquainted with each other after they were settled on the project. Only 18 were raised locally while the majority were migrants from other regions of Parana and other states. Over 20% came from the northern part of Parana, and among these there were migrants from North-East Brazil. Around 10% were from the West of Parana, and 20% from the South region. Farmers from other states such as Santa Catarina, Sao Paulo, Minas Gerais and Alagoas, constituted 17% of the members. All migrants had lived in the region for at least

seven years and thus they were used to the environment, the culture and the farming system of the area.

Around 40% of project members had been assisted by EMATER before they came to the project, while the other 60% had received no technical assistance at all. In relation to their previous occupation, practically half of the project members were sharecroppers or tenant farmers and the other half were squatters (see table V.l). Around 40% of the latter were also rural workers, and their main income was their salary. The farmers of the Nhundiaquara project had a variety of cultural backgrounds, as they were descendants of various races such as Japanese, European, and African, and also native. The majority was Roman Catholic and a minority members of three different evangelical churches. The majority of project members were married with children. There were three widows with children on the project. The average age of the men was forty-four, and the average number family members was six. Over 80% of project members were literate, and on average they had attended school for nearly three years. Among those, there were four members who attended school for at least eight years.

Table V.l - Professional Experience and Type of Landownership

Professional Experience

Type Number Percentage

Farmer 33 52 Rural Worker 29 46 Other 1 2 Former Land Ownership Tenant Farmer 33 52 Squatter 29 46 Family Land 1 2 Source: Survey, 1990.

Farm Sizes and Location of Families

According to the initial plan of EMATER, there were to be two plot sizes: 8 and 14 hectares^ (EMATER, August 1985; EMATER (a), 1987; EMATER, August, 1987). However, the average farm size on the project was around 12 hectares, while the minimum size was 2.5 hectares and the maximum 24 hectares. Over 20% of farms had under 8 hectares and nearly 60% over 8 hectares (see table V . 2 ) . Various factors contributed altering the plot sizes planned. These included soil conditions and topography of the area, and type of the crops each farmer should plant but, also the farmers' individual need for land.

Table V.2 - Project Plot Size

Plot Size (he ctares) Numb er Percentage M i n i m u m (hectares) Ma x i m u m (hectares) Under E i g h t 15 23.8 2.5 7.5 Around E i g h t 12 19.0 8.0 8.7 Over E i g h t 36 57.2 9.0 24.0 Source: Survey, 1990.

The project area was divided into 77 plots. Four plots were considered unworkable by EMATER technicians, due to their soil and topographical conditions. The 19 families that were former tenant farmers in the project area were assigned the same land they were cultivating and living on when the project was established. They cultivated areas from under one hectare to 20 hectares, for periods that varied from five to twelve years (EMATER (a) & August, 1987). Some of them had their area enlarged according to EMATER criteria to determine the land

^The land was property of the government and producers should have the right to buy their plots after 10 years.

necessary for providing the means for the subsistence of a family, but others resisted to reduce their former areas.

Only 54 new families were actually settled, and 11 were expelled from the project. Four of the families who substituted those expelled from the project needed no land but were selected because they had the means to purchase the assets left on the plots by the excluded families. Seven farmers already owned some land, which was insufficient for their subsistence, and consequently they needed less land than the others. As a result, the size of some plots was reduced by up to one hectare. This caused some farmers to have more land than they needed and others had insufficient land to produce for their subsistence. Surprisingly, one farmer was actually landless, and resided on another farmer's land.

Funding and Services

Nhundiaquara, like Vitoria, was supposed to be funded by official credit. The PROCERA and FINSOCIAL credit programmes were allocated to all families (BADER, 1990), as suggested by INCRA officials and EMATER extensionists. INCRA benefited 41 families with credit for housing from the federal government. It was to be paid in instalments over five years and farmers were expected to start repaying after two years. INCRA also provided food allowances to twenty of the poorest families during the first year, while EMBRATER provided credit for a rice-hulling machine for collective use.

The state government provided Nhundiaquara members with two machines for draining drenched soils. Farmers had two years to pay for these and costs were indexed to the price of corn. Seeds of native plants for environmental protection were given

free to farmers. Beneficiaries were provided with seeds of rice, beans and corn, which were given to the poorer families (22), while the others had to repay an equivalent amount after the harvest. During the first six months of the project, the State Health Secretariat (SESB), mobilized by EMATER, provided funding for the construction of toilets, a sewage system, protection of wells, and to buy manual water pumps, which benefited 52 families. Also, as a result of negotiations by EMATER extensionists, the Official Charity Organization (LBA) donated bricks for the foundations of 25 houses, and the local council provided some timber and bricks for helping them to build their houses. The services provided by the local council included ditching streams, improving and building roads and building small bridges inside the project area to allow transport of agricultural produce and draining of agricultural land. During the first year, it also helped with food provision for the families in most need (EMATER, August 1987; (b) 1987).

Some tenant farmers (14) had taken out loans from private banks before, and continued to do so after the project was set up. According to E M A T E R 's project report, in the second year, another eleven farmers used credit from private banks to finance farming and equipment. In the fourth year of the project, half of project members were using credit from private banks. This credit was allocated mainly on farming activities such as ploughing, drilling, and purchasing agricultural inputs, although some farmers also used it to purchase equipment. According to beneficiaries, only those who managed to produce commercial crops and had an income were given credit in the local shops (EMATER, 1990).

Obtaining these benefits and credit required different interventions by both extensionists and project members. Access to the credit from FINSOCIAL and PROCERA, and from INCRA and SEAB, required extensionists to negotiate with the government bureaucracy. This was facilitated by the fact that the government was keen to implement Nhundiaquara. The services provided by the mayor and some state government departments were a result of negotiations by extensionists along with the presidents of the associations and some project members. Gaining access to private credit depended on the individual's economic situation and their ability to approach the bank managers, as well as the criteria adopted by local bank m a n a g e r s .

The resources allocated were not sufficient to provide essential basic housing and infrastructure for all project members, and to enable all farmers to cultivate their plots adequately. Most were forced to use credit destined for farming and housing to solve difficulties with acquiring food and medicine. Credit delivery was invariably late, which prevented most producers from buying seeds and fertilizers in time. The local government failed to construct some ditches and bridges, and the state government provided insufficient financial aid for food and housing. Some farmers were seen by technicians and other project members as people lacking managerial and technical skills, and were blamed for using their loans inappropriately (ITCF, 1987; EMATER, 1990).

The EMATER extensionist assisting Nhundiaquara tried to allocate credit according to his perception of farmer's needs, which in practice proved deffective. Many farmers were left empty-handed on several occasions, with serious consequences