This article was downloaded by: [Tata Institute of Social Sciences]On: 01 October 2012, At: 09:17Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Development Southern AfricaPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdsa20

Small farms and sustainable ruraldevelopment for food security: TheBrazilian experienceCecilia Rocha a , Luciene Burlandy b & Renato Maluf ba School of Nutrition, and Associate, Centre for Studies in FoodSecurity, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canadab Reference Centre for Food and Nutrition Security (CERESAN),Faculty of Nutrition, Fluminense Federal University (UFF), Niteroi,Brazil

Version of record first published: 10 Sep 2012.

To cite this article: Cecilia Rocha, Luciene Burlandy & Renato Maluf (2012): Small farms andsustainable rural development for food security: The Brazilian experience, Development SouthernAfrica, 29:4, 519-529

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2012.715438

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Small farms and sustainable ruraldevelopment for food security:The Brazilian experience

Cecilia Rocha, Luciene Burlandy & Renato Maluf

In the past few years, Brazil has made significant progress in reducing hunger and food and nutrition

insecurity. By the end of 2009 it had met the first United Nations Millennium Development Goal of

reducing poverty and malnutrition by half, six years ahead of the 2015 deadline. Much of this

progress has been achieved through innovative policies and initiatives championed by civil

society organisations for over two decades. This paper reviews some of the most important

policies and initiatives which are having a beneficial impact on sustainable rural development

and food security. Focusing on conditions for small family farmers, the authors describe the main

elements of these government programmes as well as relevant civil society initiatives, and the

possible lessons to be learned from them. The paper concludes by discussing the challenges the

country faces in maintaining recent advances in sustainable rural development and food security.

Keywords: Brazil; food and agricultural policies; food security; small family farms; sustainable

rural development

1. Introduction

Over the past two decades, Brazil has made significant progress in reducing hunger and

other manifestations of food and nutrition insecurity. By the end of 2009 it had met the

first United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing poverty and malnutrition

by half, six years ahead of the 2015 deadline (CAISAN, 2009). Between 1995 and 2008,

over 12 million Brazilians moved out of poverty (Ituassu, 2010). The incidence of

extreme poverty fell from 17.4% of the population in 2001 to less than 9% in 2008,

an extraordinary 8.7% reduction (Barros, 2009). This was accompanied by rapid

social progress in a number of other areas: infant mortality rates were halved from

55/1000 in 1996 to 24/1000 in 2007; the percentage of children under the age of five

without adequate access to water declined from 39% in 1992 to 22% in 2008; and the

percentage of children in the age group seven to 14 years who were not attending

school fell from 12% in 1992 to 2% in 2008 (Saboia, 2008; Barros, 2009).

Much of this progress has been achieved through innovative policies which included

aggressive stabilisation measures to control inflation since the 1990s, the increasing

purchasing power of minimum wages since 2002, and the expansion of comprehensive

social programmes since 2003.

The success of the Bolsa Familia (Family Grant) deserves special mention (Soares et al.,

2007; Rocha, 2009). This highly targeted, conditional cash-transfer programme reached

Respectively, Director, School of Nutrition, and Associate, Centre for Studies in Food Security,Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada; Professor, Reference Centre for Food and NutritionSecurity (CERESAN), Faculty of Nutrition, Fluminense Federal University (UFF), Niteroi,Brazil; and Professor, Reference Centre for Food and Nutrition Security (CERESAN), Facultyof Nutrition, Fluminense Federal University (UFF), Niteroi, Brazil. Corresponding author:crocha@ryerson.ca

Development Southern Africa Vol. 29, No. 4, October 2012

ISSN 0376-835X print/ISSN 1470-3637 online/12/040519-11 # 2012 Development Bank of Southern Africahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2012.715438

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tat

a In

stitu

te o

f So

cial

Sci

ence

s] a

t 09:

17 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

012

12 million families in 2010, a quarter of the country’s population. Although not enough

to lift families out of poverty by itself, the Bolsa Familia has raised participants’ incomes

and reduced the severity of poverty (FAO, 2006; Jaccoud, 2006) and directly contributed

to increasing food and nutrition security in the country, since as much as 87% of the

transfer is spent on food (FAO, 2006; IBASE, 2008).

Comparable results have been seen with the establishment of the rural pension

programme (Maluf & Burlandy, 2007). Established in 1988, this income transfer

programme provides a monthly benefit equivalent to the minimum wage to all women

over the age of 55 and all men over 69 in rural areas, irrespective of their past social

security contributions. Research has revealed its positive impact on the living

conditions of rural families, including their capacity to invest in agricultural activity,

making this the best-performing policy for combating rural poverty in recent decades

(Delgado & Castro, 2003).

In general, federal income transfer programmes have led to a reduction of almost 30% in

the incidence of malnutrition (Monteiro et al., 2006), as they have a positive association

with improved household food security (Segal-Correa et al., 2008). They have also been

helping to reduce Brazil’s notoriously high income inequality, as they are targeted

precisely at the lowest income sectors of the population (Neri, 2006; Santos et al.,

2009). Between 2001 and 2008 the annual growth in income for the poorest 10% of

the population was 8.1%, compared to only 1.5% for the richest 10% (Barros, 2009).

The Gini inequality index for Brazil declined from 0.580 in 1995 to 0.566 in 2001,

and again to 0.528 in 2007 (Saboia, 2008).

Over the past two decades, Brazil has also experienced an extraordinary increase in

agricultural production (Valdes et al., 2009; The Economist, 2010), particularly for

global commodity markets. The country is the world’s largest exporter of sugar,

ethanol (from sugarcane), beef, coffee and orange juice, and the second-largest

exporter (after the US) of soybeans and poultry meat. The growth of Brazil’s agri-

business sector is often seen as a result of public investment in research (through

Embrapa, the Brazilian Corporation for Agricultural Research) and the expansion of

cultivated areas. Large-scale, capital-intensive farming dominates the sector.

Although it is seen in some quarters as a ‘model’ for the world because of its relatively

modest use of direct government crop subsidies (The Economist, 2010), the Brazilian

agri-business sector has been criticised as environmentally unsustainable, particularly

on account of deforestation in the centre-west and north of the country (in the

Amazon region), and the high use of harmful chemical inputs (ANVISA, 2010;

Tollefson, 2010). The sector has made little contribution to the reduction of poverty

and improvements in food and nutrition security. It has made only modest

contributions to rural employment (Schutter, 2009). So far, the export-oriented agri-

business sector of Brazil can hardly be seen as a model of sustainable rural

development for food security.

By contrast, an alternative model for sustainable rural development in Brazil is emerging

from the family farming sector. Family farms are rural enterprises which depend mostly

on the labour of the family owner. Results from the agrarian census of 2006 provide a

picture of a dynamic sector which contributes significantly to rural employment and

food security in the country (Franca et al., 2009; MDA, 2009; Mattos, 2010).

According to the 2006 census, 84.4% of all rural enterprises in Brazil are family

farms (MDA, 2009). Covering only 24.3% of all cultivated land, family farms are

520 C Rocha et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tat

a In

stitu

te o

f So

cial

Sci

ence

s] a

t 09:

17 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

012

responsible for 38% of the agricultural value produced in the country (R$54 million or

US$32 million), employing 74.4% (12.3 million people) of all workers in the agricultural

sector. With an average farm size of 18.37 hectares (compared to an average size of

309.18 ha in the agri-business sector), family farms have been responsible for a

significant share of national food production, in particular for the domestic market.

These farms supply 87% of manioc, 70% of beans, 46% of corn, 38% of coffee, 34%

of rice, 21% of wheat and 16% of soybeans – all staples in the Brazilian diet. They

also make a significant contribution to the overall production of animal-derived food:

58% of milk, 50% of poultry, 59% of pork and 30% of cattle. Family farming in

Brazil generates R$677/ha – 89% more than the average value generated by agri-

business enterprises (R$358/ha).

This paper identifies some key elements of recent developments in Brazil, which are

moving the country towards a more sustainable rural development, quite separate

from the dominant global, agri-business model it also presents. The paper reviews

some of the most important policies and initiatives that are supporting the family farm

sector and contributing to its economic viability and to food security in the country. In

the next section, we describe two important federal initiatives to support small family

farms: the PRONAF and PAA programmes. Section 3 describes how a municipal

government (in the city of Belo Horizonte) can support the small family farm sector.

While the focus of discussion in Sections 2 and 3 is on government policies, in

Section 4 we look at the role played by civil society in leading to and sustaining these

policies. The paper concludes by discussing the challenges the country faces in

maintaining recent advances in sustainable rural development and food security.

2. Federal policies: PRONAF and PAA

Throughout its history, Brazil’s economy has been dominated by ‘big agriculture’, from

sugarcane, cocoa and coffee plantations, to large soy and fruit production and extensive

cattle operations. Small, family production has always been considered a marginal, and

even dispensable, part of the agricultural economy. Until the 1990s, there was little

recognition of the family farm sector’s real and potential economic contribution. In

fact, for most of the country, small rural producers were something to be dealt with as

a ‘social problem’, given the widespread poverty among rural families, and their

demands for agrarian reform and land settlements.

Views on the family agricultural sector started to change in the 1990s, due to extensive

research by the National Institute for Colonisation and Agrarian Reform (INCRA)1 in

collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

(FAO). Results from that study (INCRA/FAO, 2000) revealed that, far from being a

marginal part of the country’s economy, family farms contributed 38% of its overall

agricultural value and employed over 70% of rural workers. This was confirmed in the

2006 census (MDA, 2009). Most significantly, the study showed the importance of the

sector for supplying the domestic food market.

Following this revelation, an important political decision was taken – to establish the

Ministry of Agrarian Development (MDA)2 in 1999. Distinct from the Ministry of

Agriculture (which is concerned with policies and programmes related to the

1Instituto Nacional de Colonizacao e Reforma Agraria.2Ministerio do Desenvolvimento Agrario.

Sustainable rural development for food security 521

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tat

a In

stitu

te o

f So

cial

Sci

ence

s] a

t 09:

17 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

012

agri-business sector), MDA’s mandate includes the promotion of rural sustainable

development and support for family agriculture. This ministry is also responsible for

agrarian reform and new rural settlements. Two of the most important programmes

under its jurisdiction are the National Programme for Strengthening Family

Agriculture (PRONAF),3 and the Food Acquisition Programme (PAA).4

PRONAF, created in 1996, was developed to provide subsidised agricultural credit, crop

insurance and technical assistance to small farmers, including agrarian reform settlers.

Some critics of this programme (Anjos et al., 2004) questioned its capacity (or even

true intention) to support the poorest farmers or to promote rural development. Indeed,

until 2004, the programme was heavily skewed towards farms in the relatively rich

southern region of the country (Junqueira & Lima, 2008), where family farmers have

always been better organised, better informed, and able to guarantee better collateral

for credit offered under the programme. Since 2004, PRONAF has been integrated

into Zero Hunger (Fome Zero), a federal strategy to combat hunger and food

insecurity (Rocha, 2009), and its reach has been significantly expanded. The

programme now targets the poorest regions of the country (north and northeast), and

has included microcredit mechanisms to benefit lower income families (CAISAN,

2009). Other initiatives within PRONAF include specific incentives for food

production (PRONAF Mais Alimentos) and environmental protection (PRONAF

Sustentavel). Close to two million families benefit from the programme.

While PRONAF is geared towards agricultural production by small farmers, PAA has

been developed to support the commercialisation of this production. Initially funded

and administered by the Ministry of Social Development and Fight against Hunger

(MDS)5 as part of the Zero Hunger strategy, since 2006 PAA has been integrated into

PRONAF. PAA promotes direct crop and milk purchases by the government for

building food stocks (and regulating food prices) and to be used in government food

programmes such as school meals, popular restaurants, community kitchens and food

banks. The programme has also provided a stimulus for greater organisation of small

family farmers into cooperatives and associations, as this is a requirement for

participation in most of its components. Greater organisation has, in turn, facilitated

credit for participating farmers and opened access to other (more distant) markets

(Delgado et al., 2005). Over 118 000 producers participated in the programme in 2008

(CAISAN, 2009).

In 2009 the government scaled up the potential for PAA’s reach by legislating that at

least 30% of the funding for the national school meals programme had to be spent on

purchasing food from family farms (FNDE, 2009). This has huge implications. The

national school meals programme serves over 40 million children per day throughout

Brazil and is administered in every municipality. Established in 1954, it is the oldest

social assistance programme in Brazil and one of the largest, with a budget of over

R$1.5 billion in 2006 (Rocha, 2009). This legislation has the potential to significantly

boost local food production on family farms.

It should be noted that these programmes fit into a national framework for food and

nutrition security, thereby connecting agriculture and nutrition. Favouring the

production and distribution of fresh vegetables and fruit by family farmers, these

3Programa Nacional de Fortalecimento da Agricultura Familiar.4Programa de Aquisicao de Alimentos.5Ministerio do Desenvolvimento Social e Combate a Fome.

522 C Rocha et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tat

a In

stitu

te o

f So

cial

Sci

ence

s] a

t 09:

17 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

012

programmes have increased the availability of healthy foods to vulnerable sectors of the

population, such as children in the public school system. This is important because,

although the prevalence of under-nutrition is decreasing, overweight and obesity have

become significant health concerns in the country (as is also the case in other parts of

the world). In 2009 the prevalence of overweight and obesity, respectively, was 34.8%

and 16.6% for children aged five to nine, 20.5% and 4.9% for adolescents (aged 10 to

19), and 49.9% and 14.8% for adults (IBGE, 2010).

3. Urban policies and rural development: The case of Belo Horizonte

Brazil is a fully urbanised country, with over 85% of its population living in cities and

smaller towns (World Bank, 2006). A major factor starting the process of accelerated

urbanisation was the push for import-substitution industrialisation and ‘modernisation’

in the 1940s and 1950s. The resulting rural-urban migration trend was reinforced in

the following decades by agricultural policies favouring high levels of mechanisation

(Martine & McGranahan, 2010).

Over 50% of all urban dwellers in Brazil live in cities with a population of one million or

more (Martine & McGranahan, 2010). Belo Horizonte, the capital of Minas Gerais State

in the interior of the country, is one of those cities. With a population of over two million

people, in 1993 the city launched a comprehensive set of programmes to reduce food

insecurity (Rocha, 2001; Lappe & Lappe, 2002; Rocha & Aranha, 2003; Shein, 2007;

Rocha & Lessa, 2009). Under the leadership of mayor Patrus Ananias of the left-

leaning Workers’ Party, Belo Horizonte became the first city in Brazil to develop

policies and programmes on the premise of adequate food as a basic human right. In

2009, the city received the Future Policy Award from the World Future Council in

recognition of its food security policies (World Future Council, 2009).

The administration of Belo Horizonte identified the market for fresh fruit and vegetables

as a potential site for improving food security conditions for city residents and, at the

same time, improving the lives of small rural producers. Fresh fruit and vegetables

had been one of the least commercially developed markets in Brazil (Farina &

Machado, 2000). Until recently, a large number of households produced fruit, and

especially vegetables, for their own consumption. But the fast pace of urbanisation,

combined with the lack of resources and tradition in urban agriculture, changed

household self-reliance in fruit and vegetable consumption. Production of fruit and

vegetables for the domestic market became dominated by small and medium-size

farmers who have not traditionally been well-organised, and lacked the resources to

market their products effectively. This situation was further aggravated by the

relatively low demand for fruit and vegetables. Studies conducted in the late 1990s

suggest that, on a regular basis, only 58% of Brazilians consumed fresh vegetables

and only 44% consumed fruit (Farina & Machado, 2000:163).

Two important programmes in Belo Horizonte have improved urban consumers’ access

to fruit and vegetables while supporting the small family farmers who produce them.

With the Abastecer programme, the city licenses sellers to set up stores in city-owned

property. Under the licence agreement, private operators must sell 20 to 25 products

at a price set by the city (20 to 50% below market prices). Prices of other items sold

in these outlets are not regulated, allowing operators a small profit. Besides prices, the

city also monitors the quality of the products and provides technical assistance and

general information on product display, safe storage and handling. A mobile version

Sustainable rural development for food security 523

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tat

a In

stitu

te o

f So

cial

Sci

ence

s] a

t 09:

17 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

012

of the programme, the Workers’ Convoy, takes the lower cost products to marginalised

areas of the city. In 2007, 27 sellers were operating under this programme (PBH, 2009).

The Straight from the Country programme aims to facilitate direct interactions between

small rural producers and urban consumers. By eliminating the intermediaries that

normally operate in bringing the products of small rural producers to urban markets,

the programme hopes to increase incomes for small farmers. Rural producers selected

through a public process are assigned fixed sale points throughout the city (often in

conjunction with the Abastecer outlets). In 2008, 34 rural producers from eight

different municipalities around Belo Horizonte were participating in the programme

(PBH, 2009). They offered a variety of fresh leaf and root vegetables and fruit at

lower prices than other outlets.

In 2008, the city also supported the operation of 49 conventional farmers’ markets (with

89 sellers) and promoted seven organic farmers’ markets benefiting eight small

producers from four surrounding rural areas (PBH, 2009). As a consequence of such

policies and programmes, Belo Horizonte became the only major Brazilian city in

which the commercialisation of fresh fruit and vegetables by ‘alternative stores’

surpassed the commercialisation done through supermarkets (Farina & Machado,

2000:164). The city has also favoured purchasing food from local family farms for

some of its other programmes, such as ‘Popular Restaurants’ (which serve over

20 000 meals per day), and the school meals programme (serving 40 million meals to

155 000 children per year).

Altogether, Belo Horizonte’s food security programmes are having a significant impact

on the lives of small farmers. While the administrations of large urban centres do not

have jurisdiction over rural areas, they are important food buyers and they regulate,

operate and facilitate food markets. In the context of high urbanisation and rural-urban

migration, cities become major protagonists in fighting food insecurity. The steady

migration of poor rural families into cities, swelling the favelas (shantytowns) and

stretching urban resources to the limit, is frequently left to be dealt with at the point

of destination by municipalities. Through its programmes, the city of Belo Horizonte

is increasing food security for its population and at the same time helping small

farmers to make a living while remaining in rural areas, decreasing the rural-urban

migration.

4. The role of civil society

The role of organised civil society in the development of policies for sustainable rural

development and food security has been central since the 1980s, when Brazil became

a democracy again after years of military rule. Trade unions, the emergence of the

Workers’ Party, the Landless Movement (MST), and other broader social movements,

all contributed to the democratisation process. The culmination of efforts by civil

society in the area of food security came in February of 2010, when the Brazilian

National Congress passed an amendment adding the Right to Food to the country’s

constitution. It is now the duty of the State to respect, protect and promote the right to

food and provide conditions for the right to adequate food to be enjoyed by all Brazilians.

The addition of the right to food to the constitution followed the enactment of the

National Law on Food and Nutrition Security (LOSAN) in 2006. Article 1 of LOSAN

establishes the definitions, principles, guidelines, objectives and composition of the

524 C Rocha et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tat

a In

stitu

te o

f So

cial

Sci

ence

s] a

t 09:

17 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

012

National System for Food and Nutrition Security (SISAN) through which the State, with

the participation of organised civil society, will formulate and implement policies, plans,

programmes and actions aimed at ensuring the human right to adequate food (Brazil

National Congress, 2005). LOSAN has thus institutionalised the practice of including

civil society in the process of policy making, as well as in programme implementation

and monitoring in the area of food security in Brazil.

What follows is a select list of major developments in the food policy arena in which civil

society has played a central role (CONSEA, 2009; Burlandy, 2011):

. 1986: During the First National Conference on Food and Nutrition, ‘nutrition’ was

incorporated into the concept of ‘food security’. Since then, the term used in Brazil

is ‘food and nutrition security’.

. 1993: The National Council for Food and Nutrition Security (CONSEA)6 was

established as an institutional space for civil society to participate in the

formulation, implementation and monitoring of public policies. It was intended to

integrate the different government sectors (agriculture, health, education,

environment) dealing with food and nutrition security (Burlandy, 2009).

. 1993–95: This was a period of sustained nation-wide civil society mobilisation around

the popular ‘Campaign against hunger and misery, and for life’, led by the social

activist Herbert ‘Betinho’ de Souza, who also worked for agrarian reform favouring

land settlements for small family producers.

. 1994: The first National Conference on Food and Nutrition Security was held in

Brasılia, with close to 2000 participants.

. 1996: The official Brazilian document for the World Food Summit in Rome was

prepared by a tripartite commission with representatives from government, civil

society and the private sector. Many of the members of the official Brazilian

delegation to the Summit were from civil society organisations.

. 1998: The Brazilian Forum on Food and Nutrition Security (FBSAN)7 was established

as a national network of social organisations, academics and government personnel.

Today, FBSAN comprises over 100 affiliated organisations.

. 1999: The Articulacao do Semiarido (ASA), a network of over 700 organisations, was

established with a proposal for a paradigm shift in addressing food production and

sustainable livelihoods in the poorest, semi-arid region of the country. ASA’s

rainwater catchment cisterns have become a symbol of appropriate technology

adapted to the local socioeconomic and natural environment.

. 2003: Under the newly-elected President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, CONSEA was re-

established, playing an important role in the implementation of the Zero Hunger

strategy. An advisory body to the president, CONSEA is composed of 54 members,

two thirds from civil society and the private sector and one third from the federal

government.

While CONSEA is one of the most important spaces for civil society participation in

public policies at the federal level, many such councils exist at regional and local

(municipal) levels, such as the ‘municipal councils for food and nutrition security’

(often responsible for overseeing the implementation of the PAA programme at the

local level) and the ‘school meals councils’ (responsible for overseeing municipal

6Conselho Nacional de Seguranca Alimentar e Nutricional.7Forum Brasileiro de Seguranca Alimentar e Nutricional.

Sustainable rural development for food security 525

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tat

a In

stitu

te o

f So

cial

Sci

ence

s] a

t 09:

17 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

012

compliance with the school meals legislation). At least half of the members of these

bodies come from civil society organisations.

Civil society organisations continue to play a role in moving the political agenda towards

sustainable rural development. In particular, the agro-ecology movement seems to be

gaining momentum in the country, with at least two major national networks

(Articulacao Nacional de Agroecologia – ANA, and Associacao Brasileira de

Agroecologia – ABA) representing organisations working for greater environmental

sustainability in agrarian practices. Through national conferences, seminars and

workshops, publications (including an academic journal), agrarian fairs, and events to

exchange best practices, these organisations promote ‘clean’ food production

(minimum use of chemical inputs), seed and biodiversity preservation, water

conservation, restoring and re-valuing local food cultures, and the establishment of

better market conditions for producers following agro-ecology principles (ANA,

2010). The movement has also been debating gender relations in the rural areas of the

country, emphasising the central role of women in agriculture, food and nutrition

security and biodiversity preservation.

5. Lessons and challenges

It is difficult to say how much of the Brazilian experience over the past two decades can

be presented as ‘lessons’ to be adopted or even adapted in other countries. For some, the

idea of creating a separate ministry to look after sustainable rural development might be

inspiring. Others may be more interested in particular individual programmes, such as

the federal PAA or Belo Horizonte’s Straight from the Country initiative. The aim of

this paper was to identify key elements that are moving the country towards more

sustainable rural development and greater food and nutrition security.

First, a striking characteristic of the democratic process in Brazil has been the significant

presence of organised civil society in policy making, implementation and monitoring.

Many authors have commented on the increased participation of civil society in

governance throughout the world. In Brazil, however, this has reached unprecedented

levels, with this participation being institutionalised through national and local

councils. Food and nutrition security councils are institutionalised spaces for dialogue

with policy makers, and civil society organisations in Brazil are taking full advantage

of this.8 Through the councils, they have been promoting ‘intersectoriality’ – a more

integrated perspective in public policy planning (integrating agriculture and health,

and reinforcing environmentally sustainable food production), and healthy practices

(strengthening the availability of healthy foods in schools and other social institutions).

Second, organised civil society practices are indeed informing the development of

policies (designing new programmes such as the PAA, and redesigning old

programmes using a food and nutrition security approach, e.g. the school meals

programme), and even informing constitutional changes (the amendment introducing

the right to food). While many countries have dynamic civil society organisations

participating in developing alternative food systems, these organisations are not

always successful in influencing policy. The authors believe that the progress in food

8Some notable exceptions must be cited. The Landless Movement (MST) has often refused toparticipate in councils. Fearing ‘cooptation’, the MST has chosen to remain outsideinstitutionalised spaces of policy debate and development such as the food and nutritioncouncils. It has preferred to continue making its contributions as a critic of the government.

526 C Rocha et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tat

a In

stitu

te o

f So

cial

Sci

ence

s] a

t 09:

17 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

012

and nutrition security in Brazil has been due to civil society’s success in transmitting its

concerns to decision makers at the policy level. For the past two decades in this country

they have found responsive governments, particularly at the federal level but also at

(many) local levels.

There are, however, still many challenges. After all, even with the improvements of the past

two decades, close to 17 million Brazilians are still extremely poor, and the country continues

to experience one of the highest levels of income inequality in the world. Many of the

policies and programmes that have improved rural lives are not reaching the poorest of

the poor. The indigenous population in the country, for example, experience an infant

mortality rate that is 2.3 times higher than the national average. Over 50% of indigenous

children and 32.7% of indigenous women present iron deficiency (CONSEA, 2010).

Another challenge is the one embedded in the new form of democratic participation

through civil society organisations and policy councils. Effective participation requires

information, training and education. While the councils provide the space for dialogue

with policy makers, they also require skills and knowledge that many representatives

of civil society organisations may not yet have. Marginalised groups often lack

information about their basic rights and about the programmes which could be

available to them. Many groups may also feel intimidated in the formal setting of

councils, or they may fear losing the independence and credibility that enable them to

make effective criticisms of government policy.

Finally, Brazil is far from securing a sustainable path for rural development. The power

of forces opposing this should not be underestimated. As has already been said, Brazil’s

rural economy is dominated by ‘big agriculture’, a powerful agri-business sector, which

so far has had little regard for environmental sustainability. Despite long-term

campaigns, civil society organisations have not yet been successful in preventing land

grabs for eucalyptus plantations and the creation of ‘green deserts’ (Acosta, 2011), or

the encroachment of the soya frontier on the Amazon basin. Despite the growth of an

agro-ecological movement, Brazilian agriculture continues to rely heavily on chemical

inputs (‘agro-toxics’ as they are known in the country). Thus, while the family farm

sector is moving towards more environment-friendly forms, sustainable rural

development in Brazil must eventually also involve agri-business practices.

Changes in economic and political conditions may always affect the willingness and

capability of governments to maintain a set of policies and programmes. There are thus

no guarantees that the fiscal measures necessary to support the development and

expansion of sustainable food and nutrition security initiatives will continue as in the

recent past. However, there is currently no sign of a reduction in civil society

mobilisation in this area in Brazil. Rather the reverse: at the fourth National Conference

for Food and Nutrition Security in November 2011, for example, over 2000 people (made

up of civil society and government representatives, invited guests and international

observers) met to debate the priorities for policy action in coming years. And some of the

gains achieved in the past two decades, such as the institutionalisation of councils, or the

inclusion of the Right to Food in the constitution, will not be easily reversed.

References

Acosta, I, 2011. ‘Green desert’ monoculture forests spreading in Africa and South America.

Guardian Environment Network, 26 September. www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/

sep/26/monoculture-forests-africa-south-america Accessed 9 July 2012.

Sustainable rural development for food security 527

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tat

a In

stitu

te o

f So

cial

Sci

ence

s] a

t 09:

17 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

012

ANA (Articulacao Nacional de Agroecologia), 2010. Soberania e Seguranca Alimentar na

Construcao da Agroecologia: Sistematizacao de Experiencias. FASE (Federacao de Orgaos

para Assistencia Social E Educacional), Rio de Janeiro.

Anjos, FS, Godoy, WI, Caldas, NV & Gomes, MC, 2004. Agricultura familiar e polıticas publicas:

O impacto do PRONAF no Rio Grande do Sul. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural 42(3),

529–48.

ANVISA (Agencia Nacional de Vigilancia Sanitaria), 2010. Programa de Analise de Resıduos de

Agrotoxicos em Alimentos (PARA): Relatorio de atividades de 2009. ANVISA, Brasılia.

Barros, RP, 2009. Sucessos e Desafios para a Polıtica Social Brasileira (apresentacao). Instituto de

Pesquisa Economica Aplicada (IPEA), Brasılia.

Brazil National Congress, 2005. Projeto de Lei PL6047. Brazil National Congress, Brasılia.

Burlandy, L, 2009. Construction of the food and nutrition security policy in Brazil: Strategies and

challenges in the promotion of intersectorality at the federal government level. Ciencia e

Saude Coletiva 14, 851–60.

Burlandy, L, 2011. The role of civil society in building the field of food and nutrition in Brazil:

Elements for reflection. Ciencia e Saude Coletiva 16(1), 63–72.

CAISAN (Camara Interministerial de Seguranca Alimentar), 2009. Subsıdio para Balanco das

Acoes Governamentais de Seguranca Alimentar e Nutricional e da Implantacao do Sistema

Nacional. Ministerio do Desenvolvimento Social e Combate a Fome (MDS), Brasılia.

CONSEA (Conselho Nacional de Seguranca Alimentar e Nutricional), 2009. Building Up the

National Policy and System for Food and Nutrition Security. FAO/IICA (Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/Inter-American Institute for Cooperation

on Agriculture), Brasılia.

CONSEA (Conselho Nacional de Seguranca Alimentar e Nutricional), 2010. Food and Nutrition

Security and the Human Right to Adequate Food in Brazil: Indicators and Monitoring.

Executive Summary. CONSEA, Brasılia.

Delgado, GC & Castro, JA, 2003. Financiamento da previdencia rural: Situacao atual e mudancas.

Texto para discussao; no. 992. Instituto de Pesquisa Economica Aplicada (IPEA), Brasılia.

Delgado, GC, Conceicao, JCPR & Oliveira, JJ, 2005. Avaliacao do Programa de Aquisicao de

Alimentos da Agricultura Familiar (PAA). Texto para discussao; no. 1145. Instituto de

Pesquisa Economica Aplicada (IPEA), Brasılia.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2006. Brazil: Major lessons from

Fome Zero (Zero Hunger). Background paper, FAO Regional Office for Latin America and

the Caribbean, Santiago.

Farina, E & Machado, EL, 2000. Regulamentacao governamental e estrategias de negocio no

mercado brasileiro de frutas e legumes frescos. In Belik, W & Maluf, R (Eds),

Abastecimento e Seguranca Alimentar. IE/UNICAMP and CPDA/UFRRJ, Campinas.

FNDE (Fundo Nacional de Desenvolvimento da Educacao), 2009. Resolucao/FNDE/CD/No 38,

de 16 de julho de 2009. Ministry of Education, Brasılia.

Franca, CG, Del Grossi, ME & Marques, VP, 2009. O Censo Agropecuario 2006 e a Agricultura

Familiar no Brasil. Ministerio do Desenvolvimento Agrario (MDA), Brasılia.

IBASE (Instituto Brasileiro de Analise Social e Economica), 2008. Repercussoes do programa

Bolsa Familia na seguranca alimentar e nutricional das famılias beneficiadas: Documento

Sıntese. IBASE, Rio de Janeiro.

IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatıstica), 2010. Pesquisa de Orcamento Familiar,

2008–2009. IBGE, Brasılia.

INCRA/FAO (Instituto Nacional de Colonizacao e Reforma Agraria/Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations), 2000. Novo Retrato da Agricultura Familiar – O

Brasil Redescoberto. INCRA/FAO, Brasılia.

Ituassu, A, 2010. Brazil: Democracy vs poverty. Open democracy, 29 July. www.opendemocracy.

net/ Accessed 24 October 2010.

Jaccoud, L, 2006. Indigencia e pobreza: Efeitos dos benefıcios previdenciarios, assistenciais e de

transferencias de renda. In Peliano, AM (Ed.), Desafios e Perspectivas da Polıtica Social.

Texto para discussao, no. 1248. Instituto de Pesquisa Economica Aplicada (IPEA), Brasılia.

528 C Rocha et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tat

a In

stitu

te o

f So

cial

Sci

ence

s] a

t 09:

17 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

012

Junqueira, CP & Lima, JF, 2008. Polıticas publicas para a agricultura familiar no Brasil. Semina:

Ciencias Sociais e Humanas 29(2), 159–76.

Lappe, FM & Lappe, A, 2002. Beautiful horizon. In Lappe, FM & Lappe, A (Eds), Hope’s Edge:

The Next Diet for a Small Planet. Tarcher/Penguin, New York.

Maluf, R & Burlandy, L, 2007. Poverty, Inequalities and Social Policies in Brazil. O Centro de

Referencia em Seguranca Alimentar e Nutricional (CERESAN), Rio de Janeiro. www.ufrrj.

br/cpda/ceresan/documentos.php Accessed 18 November 2010.

Martine, G & McGranahan, G, 2010. Brazil’s Early Urban Transition: What Can it Teach

Urbanizing Countries? International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), London.

Mattos, L, 2010. Agricultura familiar: Um dos Rumos do Brasil. Rumos do Brasil, 3 March. www.

rumosdobrasil.org.br/ Accessed 23 October 2010.

MDA (Ministerio do Desenvolvimento Agrario), 2009. Agricultura Familiar no Brasil e o Censo

Agropecuario 2006. MDA, Brasılia.

Monteiro, CA, Conde, W & Konno, S, 2006. Analise do inquerito Chamada Nutricional 2005.

Faculdade de Saude Publica da Universidade de Sao Paulo (FSP/USP), Sao Paulo.

Neri, MC, 2006. Miseira, desigualdade e estabilidade: O segundo real. Fundacao Getulio Vargas,

Rio de Janeiro.

PBH (Prefeitura Municipal de Belo Horizonte), 2009. Belo Horizonte em numeros 2008:

Administracao publica com responsabilidade social. PBH, Belo Horizonte.

Rocha, C, 2001. Urban food security policy: The case of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Journal for the

Study of Food and Society 5(1), 36–47.

Rocha, C, 2009. Developments in national policies for food and nutrition security in Brazil.

Development Policy Review 27(1), 51–66.

Rocha, C & Aranha, A, 2003. Urban Food Policies and Rural Sustainability: How the Municipal

Government of Belo Horizonte, Brazil, is Promoting Rural Sustainability. Centre for Studies

in Food Security, Ryerson University, Toronto.

Rocha, C & Lessa, I, 2009. Urban governance for food security: The alternative food system in

Belo Horizonte, Brazil. International Planning Studies 14(4), 389–400.

Saboia, AL, 2008. Sıntese de Indicadores Sociais: Uma analise das condicoes de vida da populacao

brasileira (apresentacao). Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatıstica Pesquisa Nacional por

Amostra de Domicılios (IBGE-PNAD), Brasılia.

Santos, VF, Vieira, WC & Reis, BS, 2009. Effects of alternative policies on income redistribution:

Evidence from Brazil. Development Policy Review 27(5), 601–16.

Schutter, OD, 2009. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food: Mission to Brazil.

United Nations, Geneva.

Segal-Correa, AM, Marin-Leon, L, Helito, H, Perez-Escamilla, R, Santos, LMP & Paes-Souza, R,

2008. Transferencia de renda e seguranca alimentar no Brasil: Analise dos dados nacionais.

Revista de Nutricao 21(Suplemento), 39s–51s.

Shein, E, 2007. Eliminating the outrage of hunger: The hope for municipal food distribution

programmes. SAIS Review XXVII(2), 183–94.

Soares, FV, Ribas, RP & Osorio, RG, 2007. Evaluating the Impact of Brazil’s Bolsa Familia: Cash

Transfer Programmes in Comparative Perspective. Evaluation note, no. 1. International

Poverty Centre, Brasılia.

The Economist, 2010. The miracle of the cerrado: Brazil has revolutionised its own farms. Can it

do the same for others? 28 August, 58–60.

Tollefson, J, 2010. Food: The global farm. Nature 466, 554–6.

Valdes, C, Lopes, IV & Lopes, MR, 2009. Brazil’s changing food demand challenges the farm

sector. Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm and Resource Issues 24(2), 52–6.

World Bank, 2006. Brazil – Inputs for a strategy for cities: A contribution with a focus on cities

and municipalities. Report no. 35749-BR, World Bank, Washington, DC.

World Future Council, 2009. Future Policy Award 2009: Belo Horizonte Food Security

Programme 1993, Brazil. www.worldfuturecouncil.org/4734.html Accessed 9 July 2012.

Sustainable rural development for food security 529

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tat

a In

stitu

te o

f So

cial

Sci

ence

s] a

t 09:

17 0

1 O

ctob

er 2

012