Community Groups - Source of solidarity
The thirteen communities producers started evolved to be fairly organized groups. They had a board of officials comprising a president, a secretary and a treasurer, who were elected more or less annually, and functions rotated among community members. Often women were elected to play such roles including president. Community groups were involved in productive, cultural, religious, educational and leisure activities. This helped producers to farm by enabling them to share equipment and work together during peak periods. Farmers were in charge of the administration of the eight community schools. The families of these communities elected a coordinator and a secretary for each school. In some cases the president and secretary of the community jointly held these positions. They provided support to the schools, which normally meant negotiating with the local mayor on the allocation of teachers and materials, and transportation for students attending the municipal secondary school in Mangueirinha.
The leaders^ should organize a monthly mass in the community. Religious festivities were sometimes organized jointly by two or three communities, as were leisure activities that usually involved lively parties on weekends, in which farmers themselves performed music, danced, barbecued, and played football matches. Women participated actively and usually they were in charge of cooking and serving the meals.
'Leaders totalled 26 and at least two members in each community led most of the enterprises of the communities and associations, although functions rotated frequently.
These activities provided a strong motivation for communities to meet, even during critical periods of hardship due to crop losses and delays of credit delivery.
Getting together strengthened solidarity as some leaders declared, "their community gatherings were important to strength friendship ties". During community meetings producers could talk freely about their business and find alternative solutions for their difficulties. It helped the action of their leaders and consequently of the trade union and PT. However, it did not prevent conflicts from happening which were motivated mainly by set backs of collective enterprises, unsuccessful negotiations and benefits being allocated to collective enterprises instead of individually.
Farmer Associations - Supporting economic activities
There was no pre-conceived model for associations as they were created as the need arose. According to Mr. Apel there was no policy as to what form they should take. In fact, the group experiences carried out by the CPT and MST in other states became the main reference point for the rural association model in this project. During the first year some community leaders were sent by the MST to visit associations in other projects
(EMATER, July 1987, November 1987, July 1988).
The administration of the associations was structured similarly to that of the communities, although associations required more commitment and managerial skills. There was a president, a secretary and a treasurer, who were normally elected for one year. As a general policy, the members of the association rotated these functions and women were often elected to these positions. The president of the 12 de Julho
association had been a woman, Mrs. Lourdes Terezinha da Rocha, since its inception. She was at the forefront of the land occupation. The activities developed by the rural associations included trading agricultural inputs and products, acquiring farming equipment and organizing the mutirao, a collective
labour activity. They were legally registered, which enabled them to take out bank loans. It allowed them to set up their corn and timber mills. The associations, along with the community groups, were the main link between project members and the central commission (see diagram IV.1).
Associations' Weak Points
The government's policy was to favour associations and their members instead of individual farmers which motivated producers to create associations. At one stage there were 23 associations operating. However, many of them disappeared shortly after their members got hold of their share of the credit. According to the leaders and extensionists they terminated mainly due to lack of interest of their members to operate in groups. Remarkably, the twelve associations that ASSESOAR assisted remained operational. They were set up for reasons other than simply qualifying farmers to receive official credit.
Associations differed significantly in relation to their degree of organization and performance. After three years, only six associations were active, promoted frequent meetings with their members and managed their economic enterprises appropriately. The others simply carried out their economic activities such as making corn flour or cutting timber. The main constraints of the associations included lack of technical
assistance and training. The president Mrs. Rocha, pointed out that "the development of each association depended largely on the willingness and ability of its members to organize and make it efficient". The Planalto association bought an outdated
steam locomotive which failed to work and indebted its members. As Mrs. Sotti, the wife of its president reported "they realized that the machine they had bought to move a timber cutting station was out of order after had already been installed. As a result, the association could not operate and they had no means of paying back the loan".
The fact the state government ceased to deliver benefits from programmes of the state for two years demobilized the associations. Mrs. Rocha pointed out "the disagreement with the Secretary was a further setback for our organization, since we had already been suffering from credit delays and crop losses". This discouraged members from taking part in meetings, which reduced group solidarity and group organization in the project as a whole. The involvement of leaders of the associations in the politics of the trade union and political party detached them from community groups and associations. Especially during the elections they prioritized the campaign instead of more tangible demands of their groups. Mrs. Rocha pointed out that she had hardly met the project leaders involved in politics in the last two years. She mentioned that, "they really abandoned us, which weakened our groups mainly in terms of our ability to negotiate with the authorities. The mayor and the Secretary of Agriculture also became our enemies because they supported their opponents". In addition, a crooked leader, the secretary of the Nova Prata association, Mr. Machado, took over the
the association reported, "we simply lost all our investment to this farmer and this situation is unlikely to change, since he does not listen to us and is also a violent person".
Authoritarism, Hardship and Changing Demands
The extensionists and farmers suggested meetings and integration between associations were frequent at the beginning but decreased significantly over time. The EMATER extensionist, Mr. Costa, suggested that group activities diminished as producers confronted government repression. According to Mrs. Rocha, "on the first year and especially during the election campaigns, we used to have meetings weekly, and sometimes more frequently than this. But when politics were no longer on our side, we rarely met and then only for dealing with economic or productive matters". Reducing the chances of gaining benefits through meetings and negotiations discouraged producers from getting together.
According to ASSESOAR extensionist, Mr. Apel, when the government closed its doors to the project, its leaders were unable to deliver solutions for farmers' problems and consequently they became distant from farmers. Producers became basically concerned with their economic situation and the leaders lost their ability to coordinate or represent beneficiaries at the MLSC. A leader, Mr. Arno Hauer, pointed out, "as we lost ground in politics, our organization began to perish". According to Mr. Costa, "the leaders, including the president of the trade union, used to control the whole process (project), but when they failed to deliver the solutions farmers needed, mainly in terms of credit and agricultural technology, they were isolated by the members of the project".
In addition, the government was prepared to negotiate directly with the associations and community groups and bypass leaders, as an strategy to avoid dealing with the opposition. As a result producers links with the supporting organizations and movements became "barriers", as they obstructed negotiations with the government. This situation encouraged the leaders as well as producers to comply with the government rules and rejected previous alliances and ideas.
The nature of the demands of the project changed over time. The demands during the creating of the project and settling the families were political and when beneficiaries needed to develop farming they were technical and economical. The leaders farmed poorly, as they spent most of their time responding to the demands of project members. Extensionists and producers recognized that project leaders were politically effective but were not capable of leading the productive process and this affected their ability to lead others. Leaders of the associations and community groups became more influential in coordinating and representing beneficiary interests. They developed friendship ties among group members by working together over time and they were committed to more tangible matters whereas the others were involved in the politics of trade union, agrarian reform and the democratization movement, which farmers found difficult to connect with their day-to-day problems.
Central Association - Conflicting goals
In the third year, the leaders at Vitoria organized a central association, which was supported by ASSESOAR and EMATER extensionists. It aimed to help associations process and market
their produce and purchase inputs and strengthen links between communities and associations. It was able to carry out some activities that were economically advantageous to the farmers, such as buying equipment and agricultural inputs in bulk. It also purchased a tractor which was useful for some farmers. However, it lacked funding and largely failed to convince farmers that it would be worthwhile keeping. Producers' hardship, the controversies involving p a d r e José and the State
Secretary, and the leaders being absorbed in party politics and trade unionism contributed to its demise.
During the survey, two years later, project leaders started to organise a new central association. They received funding from the government and international NGOs to build a corn mill with a processing capacity that exceeded the demand of the members of Vitoria. According to its provisional president, Mr. Antonio Ribas, it was an initiative of the Vitoria leaders and intend to support Associations of all land settlement projects of Mangueirinha. Associations were members instead of individual farmers and each member elected its own delegate for the central association. However, this gave rise to criticism from both project members and ASSESOAR extensionists. According to extensionist Mr. Apel, he was not sure that it was a real priority for beneficiaries, since they still faced the problem of low productivity and production. However, re-starting the central association was also an attempt by leaders' to approach communities, build ties and solidarity between Vitoria and other land settlement projects in the municipality, and strengthen their authority.
IV.5 - ASSESOAR
The Associaçâo de Estudos, Orientaçâo e Assistência Rural
(ASSESOAR) is a non-governmental organization located in the municipality of Francisco Beltrao, which operates in the South- Western region of Parana. It was founded on 17th October 1966 by 33 small farmers supported by Belgian Catholic missionaries. The latter came to the region to stimulate a politicized pastoral programme, inspired by the Second Council of Latin American Bishops (Vatican II) . They introduced a religious practice concerned with political and economic issues, that focused on the organization of its members through trade unions and rural co-operatives. This work contribtued to creating the Catholic Rural Youth (JAC) in 1964, the establishment of the local Rural Cooperative of Francisco Beltrao (Confrabel) in 1965, and the creation of community religious groups (CEBs), in the region, in 1968.
ASSESOAR started motivated by the need of lay workers to set up a place for regular meetings and the production of printed materials to support pastoral work. From the beginning its administration was largely controlled by its members and was conducted by an administration board with 13 members. Three of them are directors, eight are in charge of its departments and two were non-members. Directors and department members are elected by ASSESOAR members in a annual general assembly, while the non-members are indicated by its department members. N o n members usually are a priest and a professional such as a lawyer or agronomist, committed to the teaching of Christian principles and the cause of the small farmers (ASSESOAR, 1966).
These are important to link ASSESOAR to farmer organizations and the government (ASSESOAR, 1981).
ASSESOAR supported movements that challenged official policies and authoritarism, which included EMATER's commitment to modernization policies and larger farmers. This deteriorated its relationship with the government and in the late 1960s, one of its members was prosecuted by the military government for ideological reasons (Batisti, 1989). Church members gradually withdrew from ASSESOAR's administration m a inly because a new Bishop disagreed with its autonomy and policy. By the end of 1970s, clergy members no longer participated in its administration, thus making ASSESOAR fairly independent from the church. It strengthened its links with like-minded organizations and movements, in particular with the pastoral Land Commission (CPT), the landless farmers movement (MST), the 'authentic' trade unions, and the workers party (PT) (Batisti, September 1989; Feres, 1989). Religious teaching was no longer ASSESOAR's priority, but rather socio-political and economic work with small farmers. It saw its role as being to prepare its members to take responsibilities in their organizations, and act as 'animators' of mass movements working towards socio economic and political change in the country. It also focused on encouraging small farmers to adopt and generate alternative technology. Its objectives included help small farmers to achieve a 'descent' livelihood, critical awareness of their situation and society as a whole, value small farmers' culture, participate in official polices (Batisti, 1989).
ASSESOAR contributed significantly to the various small farmers's movements that occurred from the late 1970s, which included major mass movements that demanded better prices,
favourable agricultural policies and land reform, the organization of the encampments of the landless and land invasions, and the organization of the landless movement in the region (MASTES), which were dealt with in chapter I. By the end of the 1980s, ASSESOAR's members comprised around 600 small farmers, who were its primary clientele and were in charge of its administration. They participated actively and played important roles in trade unions, co-operatives. Church and opposition political parties. Some of them were part or full time collaborators of the MST, the church land commission (CPT) and ASSESOAR itself. Moreover, in 1982, two of its members were elected local councillors and one Parana's state congressman
(Batisti, 1989).
During the 1980s, ASSESOAR emphasised raising farmers' awareness about ecology and reducing farmers' dependency on industry and private banks. It involved experimenting with organic fertilizers with its affiliates, organization of community education centres where it worked with groups of animators (from 10 to 15 small farmers) . It supported alternative agriculture groups, which involved around 4 50 families, in 13 municipalities. It supported the creation of small associations and advocated that their administration and programme should respond primarily to their m e m b e r s ' needs (ASSESOAR, July 1988). In the early 1990s, ASSESOAR assisted 25 small associations which networked with others situated in various states of Brazil. They provided their members with several types of agricultural equipment and services that included milling, sawing, harvesting and marketing their p r o d u c e .