SERVICIOS DE DATOS

Extension Programme

The extension programme in Brazil closely followed the steps of the US land-grant college. During its first years, it addressed only questions of agricultural production and home administration, except land tenure. Agricultural production programmes were designed to introduce new technology such as improved seeds, chemical fertilizers, machinery and storage systems, while the home administration programme, focused on health, nutrition and education issues. It was assumed that the transfer of technology alone would be sufficient to improve the lives of farmers and their families. In the early 1960s, when official policies began to emphasize economic growth,

modernization and industrialization, the extension programme incorporated the principles of economic efficiency and rural enterprise. Programmes related to farm administration and marketing organization were introduced, and increasing agricultural production was emphasised (Fonseca, 1985; EMBRATER, 1978) .

These objectives gained even greater importance in the mid-1970s when EMBRATER and EMBRAPA were created, and the modernization of agriculture became the main objective of extension. Brazilian research integrated with international research centres and extension work consisted of transferring to farmers technological packages produced by EMBRAPA (Aguiar, 1986). By the late 1970s, extension became part of the government's regional and national programmes, such as those for developing the Amazon and North-east regions. During the 1980s however, the democratization process and the changes in EMBRATER polices encouraged extension to address programmes that focused on improving the livelihoods of farmers, farmer's political organization, protection of environment and even land reform (EMBRATER (a), 1985).

The number of extensionists involved in agricultural and home administration programmes and trends in the provision of credit via extension corroborates these changes in extension priorities. In 1956, the number of extension agents working on programmes of technical assistance to agricultural production and home administration was fairly similar. In the mid-1960s, there were approximate 10% more extensionists working on technical assistance than in home administration, rising to 30% in the 1980s (EMBRATER, 1984). During the 1990s, those working in agriculture comprised the majority (ASBRAER, June 1999).

Since its inception, extension used subsidised credit as an instrument for inducing farmers to adopt new technology. Credit gained greater importance in 1966, when the National Rural Credit System was created for supporting modernization polices, as seen in chapter I. In 1969, extension accounted for nearly 4% of the total rural credit distributed in the country. By 1975, the participation of extension services in total credit distributed had increased to 8%. Its peak was 9% in 1976, and was around 4% until 1984 (EMBRATER, 1984). It fell considerably later as subsidised credit was withdrawn due to economic adjustment.

Official Extension and Agrarian Reform

Until the late 1970s, official extension services pursued the objective of improving farmers' living conditions without changing social or political structures. They advocated assisting the rich and poor farmers alike. EMBRATER set up different projects separately, addressing both large and small farmers, but in general it was assumed that poorer farmers could have their living standards improved by simply adopting modern technology, using credit and operating in the market. By the late 1970s, the democratization process allowed small farmers and rural workers to influence EMBRATER's policy, usually through the rural trade union movement (CONTAG), the radical Catholic Church (CRT and C E B s ) , and the landless movement (MST) , but far less so in the case of EMATERs

(EMBRATER, 1978, January, April, 1985).

In the early 1980s, both the Ministry of Agriculture and EMBRATER included in their policies, the interests of small farmers, sharecroppers, squatters, landless farmers and rural

workers. The democratization process that allowed Congress to elect the first president after the military coup of 1964 consolidated this process. The M inistry of Land Reform (MIRAD) and the National Plan of Agrarian Reform (PNRA) were created, as discussed in chapter I. The official extension services were put in charge of providing technical assistance to the rural workers and landless farmers in the land settlement projects created by the PNRA. EMBRATER took the lead in assisting the rural poor and supporting land reform and set ambitious targets for itself. It intended to double its capacity in only three years by employing over 11,000 extension workers for assisting around three million farmers. However, EMBRATER had no chance to achieve these goals, as more traditional policies were enforced subsequently, as discussed in chapter I (MIRAD, October 1985; Figueiredo, June 1986).

By 1987 only around 5% of government extensionists (around 600) were assisting land settlement projects. The nature of the work in rural settlement projects differed from extension work in communities. It required greater commitment and creativity because they faced extreme lack of infrastructure, financial resources and experience of the extension and the state bureaucracy in dealing with them. EMBRATER also prescribed a more participatory approach to working with agrarian reform beneficiaries. It required extension services to work along with small farmer organizations, such as the landless movement and trade unions, which were uncommon. Participatory methods as well as the links and the commitment these extensionists had with the landless farmers and rural workers conflicted with those that held more traditional values. Those extensionists working on agrarian

reform projects became isolated within EMATERs as a result (Figueiredo, June 1986; EMBRATER (a), 1985, January and April, 1985, 1988; Ming et al, 1991).

Extension Clientele

From its inception the official extension service was intended to assist small farmers. In practice however, until the early 1960s it assisted small and medium landowners and sharecroppers, and not rural workers or squatters. After 1964, when the agriculture modernization policies were emphasised, official extension focused on industrial and export crop producers, mainly large and medium farmers and therefore largely jeopardized work with small farmers. It worked again with small farmers after the mid-1970s, mainly as a result of official policies in favour of the production of food crops, incentives for increasing the production of sugar to process alcohol and the influence of agencies such as the World Bank

(Figueiredo, 1982, July/August 1984; EMBRATER, 1984).

The credit distributed via extension corroborates these trends. In 1965, both the number of credit plans and the amount of credit distributed by extension was 4% of the total. By 1975, extension distributed 5% of the credit plans, or 7.6% of total credit. The size of the loans and farmers increased. In 1980, the share of extension in credit plans doubled (10%), and their value fell to less than 7% of the total, which indicates that smaller farmers once again became extension's clientele (EMBRATER, 1984). This trend continued during the 1980s, motivated by the need to increase food production for a growing urban population and the democratization process. The New Republic allowed EMBRATER, for the first time, to officially

include small farmers, sharecroppers, squatters and rural workers amongst its clientele. EMBRATER emphasized programmes addressed exclusively at the poor but it did not oblige EMATER to prioritize them (Figueiredo, June 1986) . However, on the whole, extension benefited the larger farmers throughout the 1970s and 1980s, as seen in chapter I.

Extension Methods

Official extension used basically the same methods that the US extension service used and with similar objectives. They were tools to diffuse new technology and persuade farmers to adopt it, as well as to change social behaviour and attitudes on health, nutrition, education and community life (Fonseca, 1985) . Great emphasis was placed on group methods at the beginning, when extension promoted the community development approach. The use of individual methods, however, increased during the trend towards modernization. Extension work was concentrated on larger farms, which were better prepared to respond to commercial stimulus to increase production, and more capable of influencing others to change, according to the diffusion-of-innovation approach. In 1964, an extensionist assisted 223 farmers, on average. By 1971 each extensionist assisted 167 farmers, and in 1975, only 90. As extension adopted more progressive policies and addressed the small farmers, extensionists made more use of group methods. By 1981 each extension agent assisted 151 farmers on average (EMBRATER, 1984).

By the late 1970s, extension services advocated the use of groups as an instrument to help identify small farmer priorities. In practice this largely meant using groups to

persuade small farmers to participate in extension programmes. In the mid-1980s, when EMBRATER took up the policies of the New Republic, it suggested that extensionists use a more participatory extension methodology, which would stress dialogue through group discussions and value farmers' knowledge. It intended to reverse completely the diffusionist methodology of extension (Figueiredo, July/August 1984, June

1986).

EMBRATER promoted this methodology through training courses, supervision and consultancies to EMATER extensionists. However, the fear of the large landowners, the government and EMATER administration of the participation of the poor and the extensionists' biases largely thwarted these efforts. It was more successful with a minority working on agrarian reform projects and small farmer associations, or linked to trade unions of rural workers and small farmers, the landless movement, the Church or specific community and regional projects (Figueiredo, 1982, Figueiredo, June 1986; EMBRATER,

(b) 1985, 1988).

Farmer Organization Approach

Until the early 1960s, extension emphasized community organization and community groups, including youth and house-wife groups, and county council commissions. It was fairly well integrated with local councils, trade unions, and small associations. When modernization policies were adopted this approach declined. In 1960, there were 157 youth clubs and 3,604 by 1969. Eight years later, in 1977, they had decreased to less than half of that number, while the number of extensionists had increased over 300% (Grabriel, 1970; EMBRATER, 1978, (a) 1985).

In the early 1970s, extension prioritized rural cooperatives as a means of organizing farmers. It fostered cooperatives to provide storage facilities, facilitate the provision of credit, technical assistance, industrial fertilizers, pesticides and improved seeds, as seen in Chapter I. In 1964, extension assisted around 170 rural cooperatives in the country, and by 1973, this number had increased to over 700. It continued increasing throughout the 1970s and 1980s (EMBRATER (a) 1985, January 1985) . By the late 1970s, as work with small farmers became part of the extension agenda, group organization was gradually emphasized as well as the view that farmer organizations was a means of making producers play an active part in development. By the mid-1980s, when EMBRATER began supporting policies in favour of agrarian reform, the organization stressed a more radical view of farmer organization that advocated groups linked to trade unions and farmers' organizations engaged in the struggle for land and benefits for the poor (EMBRATER (b) 1985, January 1985).

However the large landowners pressured EMBRATER and EMATERs, through their organizations, and used their political power to discourage EMBRATER's initiative. As with the other initiatives discussed above, it was overridden by traditional forms of organization that extension had prescribed previously. Only a minority of extension agents incorporated those more radical policies in their practice, and were subjected to retaliation as a result (EMBRATER, (a) (b) 1985, 1988; Ming et al, 1991). In 1987 EMBRATER was terminated and funding from the federal government to the official extension services was cut, in part due to its policies (Ming et al, 1991).