1

1An assessment of smallholder engagement

2with socio-environmental NGOs in

3southern Bahia, Brazil, with particular

4reference to smallholder land-use systems

5Alaine A. Ball1*, Theodore S. Varns1, and Jeffrey J. Stoike

61. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 195 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT

706511, USA

8* Author for correspondence: alaine.ball@gmail.com

10

11KEYWORDS: Atlantic Forest, smallholder farmers, non-governmental organizations,

12biodiversity conservation, agroforestry systems, rapid appraisal, non-timber forest products,

13traditional ecological knowledge

 2

14

15Table of Contents

16ACRONYMS USED....................................................................................................................3
17ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................................4
18INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................5
19OBJECTIVES...........................................................................................................................10
20 Two NGO case studies......................................................................................................................10
21SITE DESCRIPTION AND METHODS.........................................................................................12
22 Site Description................................................................................................................................12
23 Methods...........................................................................................................................................16
24FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS..........................................................................................18
25 Farmer Landholdings and Native Tree Use.......................................................................................18
26 Effects of NGO Engagement.............................................................................................................20
27 Barriers to Increased Income Generation and to NGO engagement.................................................24
28 Farmer Experiences with NGOs........................................................................................................26
29 Farmer Perceptions of Conservation................................................................................................28
30 Implications of NGO strategy...........................................................................................................30
31 Overcoming Barriers, New Opportunities........................................................................................31
32CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................34
33REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................37
34ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................................................42
35FIGURES.................................................................................................................................43
36TABLES..................................................................................................................................48
37

38
 3

39ACRONYMS USED
40AFS: Agroforestry System

41IBAMA: Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Instituto

42Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renovaveis)

43IFV: Instituto Floresta Viva

44INCRA: National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform (Instituto Nacional de

45Colonização e Reforma Agrária)

46MdV: Mecenas Da Vida

47NGO: Non-Governmental Organization

48NTFP: Non-timber forest product

49PESC: Serra do Conduru State Park (Parque Estadual da Serra do Conduru)

50PRONAF: National Program for Strengthening Family Agriculture (Programa Nacional de

51Fortalecimento da Agricultura Familiar)

 4

52ABSTRACT

53 In southern Bahia, Brazil, socio-environmental NGOs are promoting the conservation and

54restoration of biodiversity in the endangered tropical Atlantic Forest while also working to

55improve the livelihoods of smallholder farmers and traditional farming communities. At the

56same time, a rapidly changing economy, strict conservation laws regarding forest use, and new

57political and institutional dynamics are transforming the lives of smallholder farmers in

58unpredictable ways. Using Rapid Rural Appraisal techniques as part of a graduate-level tropical

59forestry course, we conducted an evaluation and analysis of the projects of two prominent NGOs

60that are attempting this parallel strategy of conservation and livelihood improvement. Through

61interviews and field visits with professional NGO staff, field technicians, farmers who have

62participated in these programs, and farmers who have not, we describe the diversity of

63smallholder production strategies and traditional ecological knowledge encountered that are

64relevant to conservation, income generation, and farmer culture. We recorded 131 native and

65exotic species that were cited by farmers and/or NGO representatives, or that we observed on

66farmer properties. Dozens of these species have high economic, utility, and conservation

67potential for small farmers, but barriers—such as the lack of access to markets, transportation,

68infrastructure, and organizational assistance—may prevent this potential from being realized.

69 Our observations indicate that NGO programs improve conservation awareness by small

70farmers while also modestly increasing incomes, but that farmer interpretation of past land-use

71practices has been altered through NGO engagement, in some cases devaluing their traditional

72practices and promoting non-local techniques to conservation. Additionally, restrictive laws that

73complicate management of native timber on smallholder properties preclude a potential source of

74income generation. Both farmers and NGO representatives also express concern that smallholder
 5

75extension programs promote dependence upon outside help. We conclude that the parallel

76strategies of conservation and income generation are necessary and improve smallholder

77livelihoods, but that targeting changes in smallholder land-use practices may obscure the role

78played by larger-scale social and political drivers of economic and land-use change—such as

79changing markets and forest policies favoring large producers—that contribute more toward

80forest degradation. While the current strategy addresses the multiple objectives of improving

81smallholder livelihoods, enhancing conservation practices, and helping to keep smallholder

82farmers on their land, socio-environmental NGOs and conservation efforts operating within the

83existing political environment will achieve greater success by allowing farmer knowledge to play

84an increasingly valued role in the discussion, by serving as networks among farmers, and by

85linking farmers with markets and government programs.

86

87INTRODUCTION

88 As a threatened forest system of high endemism, the Brazilian Atlantic Forest has

89increasingly been the focus of conservation initiatives. The surge of protected area creation in the

901980s; the designation of the Atlantic Forest as a Biodiversity Hot Spot (Meyers et al. 2000);

91enforcement of the Brazilian Federal Forest Code1 (Crawford and Pignataro 2007) and the New

92Atlantic Forest Law of 2006 (Calmon et al. 2011; Tabarelli et al. 2005); and efforts of large-scale

93reforestation initiatives such as the Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact launched in 2009 (Calmon et

94al. 2001),2 have been important in slowing large-scale deforestation and in restoring degraded

95lands. However, these overlapping policies and their implementation have often failed to

96consider the needs, lifestyles, and worldviews of small farmers, and how policy interacts with

11 Federal Law n.4.771/065, revised to Federal Law n.12.651/2012.

22 http://www.pactomataatlantica.org.br
 6

97small-scale agricultural land-use (Ditt et al. 2008; Tabarelli et al. 2005; McGinty 2012). In some

98cases, this lacuna in the policy process has resulted in displacement of rural populations (Diegues

991994), negative smallholder perceptions of conservation, loss of livelihoods (Ferreira 2003), and

100loss of traditional ecological knowledge (Zuchiwschi et al. 2010). In southern Bahia, major

101conservation initiatives, the crash of the cacao market in the early 1990s, and a growing tourism

102sector responsible for increasing land values and development pressures are forcing smallholders

103to adapt to altered legal and economic conditions (Scanlan Lyons 2010; Frickmann Young

1042003).

105 Recent efforts to engage smallholders in restoration and sustainable development projects

106have attempted to address this gap by promoting alternative sources of smallholder income, such

107as ecotourism, production of organic fruits and vegetables, and increased production of non-

108timber forest products (NTFPs) (Scanlan Lyons 2010). Additionally, reforestation initiatives are

109including small farmers in the native seedling production process by buying seedlings produced

110on smallholder property or seeds collected by farmers (Calmon et al. 2011; Brancalion et al.

1112011). Through these projects, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with a socio-

112environmental focus are working with smallholders to promote a parallel strategy of protecting

113biodiversity while improving the livelihoods of farmers, challenging the general perception that

114agriculture is incompatible with forest conservation.3

115 Since the 1970s, the Brazilian environmental movement has largely been driven by

116NGOs that actively concern themselves with both biological conservation and social and

117economic justice among marginalized, rural peoples. NGOs have increasingly played a central

118role in rural conservation and development efforts by performing on-the-ground outreach with

33 Instituto Floresta Viva. September 2010. “Encarte Especial do Jornal Atitude.”

4http://www.florestaviva.org.br/artigos-e-publicacoes/Encarte_FlorestaViva_JornalAtitude%20Ed12.pdf. Accessed 8
5February 2012.
 7

119local stakeholders and farming communities, promoting capacity-building and participatory

120approaches, and addressing concerns of democratic participation and poverty alleviation

121(Bebbington et al. 1993). In many cases, NGOs are able to more directly address the household

122situations of rural populations due to their greater flexibility in fulfilling functions previously

123performed by the state (ibid.), or by acting as intermediaries between households, governments,

124funders, and the private sector (Scanlan Lyons 2010). For example, NGOs have engaged in

125efforts to promote land reform and settlement for migrant farmers and in promoting the

126conservation of traditional cultures and knowledge (Cullen et al. 2005; Hochstetler & Keck

1272007). In recent years, the broader global conservation narrative has also shifted away from a

128sole emphasis on protected areas to a dialogue about how to work with local populations and

129support their well-being, especially in cases where people are likely to be negatively impacted by

130conservation efforts.

131 In southern Bahia, NGOs are not only working on these two goals, but are also

132attempting to adapt to new market-based trends and funding opportunities—such as voluntary

133carbon credits (Ross, this volume) and carbon neutral ecotourism (Kramer & Whelpton, this

134volume)—that have arisen out of international concerns about global climate change and the

135contribution of deforestation to carbon dioxide emissions. These NGOs are looking for ways to

136leverage these funding sources toward addressing their ongoing goals of reducing rural poverty,

137diversifying farm income, and improving land management practices in order to allow farmers to

138adapt successfully to changing conditions.

139 In addressing the goals of both conservation and rural livelihoods by linking farmers with

140novel production chains and preserving traditional knowledge and practices, NGOs in southern

141Bahia have taken on a formidable task, but may find their impacts limited within a constrained
 8

142set of policies and incentives. In Brazil, for example, overly restrictive laws on the uses of the

143Atlantic Forest reduce incentives to maintain sustainable harvest and management of forest

144products (Hodge et al. 1997). A continuing narrative that portrays smallholder farmer practices—

145such as “slash-and-burn” or swidden agriculture4—as destructive or unsustainable is a common

146simplification of the rural dynamic (CEPF 2005; Rocheleau et al. 2001), and has been used to

147justify the establishment of protected areas and enforcement of new restrictions upon the use and

148management of the remaining Atlantic Forest (Scanlan Lyons 2010).5

149 Research has also described how the establishment of protected areas can have perverse

150consequences. By prohibiting traditional land management techniques of farming families, who

151often practice swidden agriculture with long fallow periods, these laws force them to use

152remaining forest areas more intensively, leading to increased degradation of the soil and resource

153base (Zanoni 2000). Such a result can paradoxically lead to replication of failed policies, wherein

154the continued deterioration of small farmer resource conditions is used to re-justify the

155imposition of such restrictions, creating a vicious cycle. This pattern is not unusual: forestry

156policies worldwide have often been shown to disproportionately impact small landholders and

157exacerbate precarious economic situations, while elites and industrial players are able to avoid

64 “Slash-and-burn” is a pejorative term for swidden agriculture, a form of non-permanent cultivation practiced by
7indigenous and traditional peoples throughout the tropics, characterized by cutting and burning of forest for short-
8term cultivation and by fallow periods that exceed cropping periods in order to restore nutrients to the land (Conklin
91957).
105 The Brazilian Forest Code of 1965 (Federal Law n.4.771/065) requires that landowners in the Atlantic Forest hold
1120 percent of their property undisturbed in “legal reserves” and that riparian forest and forest on hilltops and steep
12slopes be preserved as “permanent preservation areas” (Resolution 04/85), while the Atlantic Forest Law of 2006
13(Decree n.6.660/08, PL 107/2003) regulates vegetation removal based on stage of regeneration, with stages
14identified as pioneer, initial, medium, and advanced (Ditt et al. 2008). These two pieces of legislation thus directly
15affect where swidden agriculture can occur both inside and outside of protected areas, as hillsides, forests within 30
16meters of water bodies (including small streams), and forest at medium and advanced stages of regeneration are
17declared off-limits. The updated Forest Code of 2012 (Federal Law n.12.651/2012) maintains restrictions against
18swidden agriculture for smaller “non-traditional” farmers without a valid permit from the relevant regional or
19national environmental authority.
 9

158these restrictions and more easily benefit from government incentives (Dove 1993; Larson and

159Ribot 2007; Rocheleau et al. 2001).

160 In southern Bahia and São Paulo State, there is also evidence that the traditional

161ecological knowledge of smallholders is being lost due to prohibitions on the use of native forest

162species (Zuchiwschi et al. 2010). Although public discourse in Brazil increasingly recognizes

163traditional culture and ecological knowledge, it is heavily slanted toward certain populations that

164fit externally-defined social narratives of marginalization and history. For example, indigenous

165peoples and Quilombolas6 are afforded special rights in Brazil’s constitution, and they, along

166with other traditional communities such as Caiçaras7 and Caboclos8, are able to remain living

167legally in certain protected areas (de Castro et al. 2006; Penna-Firme & Brondizio 2007).

168However, small farmers who do not originate from one of these recognized traditional

169communities, irrespective of their ethnic backgrounds, are often not recognized for their

170ecological knowledge and cultural traditions.9 Granting of rights to some groups over others has

171had the effect of dividing rural peoples and preventing a broader movement to advocate common

172social, economic, and environmental causes (de Castro et al. 2006; Penna-Firme & Brondizio

1732007).

174 Despite these observations, conservation in the Atlantic Forest continues to prioritize the

175biological over the social realities of the populations that inhabit these landscapes (Tabarelli et

176al. 2005; Rodrigues et al. 2009). In consideration of the complex social realities of smallholder

177farmers dependent upon this landscape, and the important role of NGOs in conservation and
206 Quilombolas are descendants of escaped slave communities.
217 Caiçaras are traditional peoples of mixed European, indigenous, and African ancestry who live along the Atlantic
22Coast of Brazil.
238 Caboclos are traditional swidden farmers and fishers of similar ancestry as Caiçaras who live along riverine
24habitats of the Amazon region. Both Caiçaras and Caboclos rely on a mix of swidden agriculture, cash crops,
25fishing, hunting, and foraging for their livelihoods (Begossi 1999).
269 These “non-traditional” farmers do still have access to several government programs for rural development and
27small-scale forestry (Veríssimo 2006).
 10

178rural livelihood improvement, we analyze the strategies and effects of the engagement of two

179socio-environmental NGOs with farmers in southern Bahia.

180

181OBJECTIVES

182Two NGO case studies

183 Instituto Floresta Viva (IFV) and Mecenas da Vida (MdV) are two NGOs working to

184support smallholders and conserve native forest in the Itacaré-Serra Grande region of southern

185Bahia. Though working in the same region, these two NGOs employ different strategies to

186achieve similar goals. This paper examines these strategies, assessing the effectiveness and

187outcomes of NGO engagement with farmers, and describes the use of land and native tree

188species by farmers who had different levels of interaction with these organizations. Through

189interviews and site visits, we analyze the conditions, challenges, and incentives that affect the

190viability and sustainability of smallholder production in the context of these NGO projects. We

191end with a discussion of the implications of these models and offer recommendations for priority

192issues on which NGOs could focus future efforts.

193 This assessment has two primary objectives, with overlap inherent. The first objective is

194to describe the spatial arrangement of smallholder landholdings and farmers’ use of native tree

195species, focusing on species identified by farmers or NGOs as having economic potential. This

196involves mapping resource use on farms visited, including locations of species (e.g. homegarden,

197agroforest, secondary forest), principal crops, and how this compares with existing literature on

198smallholder land-use systems.

199 Our second objective assesses the effect of NGO engagement with smallholders,

200including effect on land-use and on smallholder perceptions of conservation. We address

 11

201engagement with NGOs and the barriers to farmer income generation that NGOs seek to address,

202such as limited access to markets and resources, legal requirements and restrictions, and land

203tenure. We also explore the loss of knowledge and use of native tree species that occurs as a

204result of these barriers. An evaluation of the effect on land-use includes determining whether

205farmers have changed the spatial arrangement and prioritization of crops or introduced new

206strategies and techniques on their properties due to NGO outreach. To evaluate changes in

207perception, we assessed the following:

208  Attitudes and opinions toward restoration and reforestation

209  Opinions, values, and priorities of representative community groups and smallholders

210 regarding their experience with IFV and MdV projects

211  Points of overlap in values and priorities between farmers and NGOs.

212 In light of the diversity of NGO projects that exist to engage smallholders in the

213conservation process, this study adds to the literature on the relationship between biodiversity

214conservation and potential for livelihood diversification and reduced poverty among

215smallholders in southern Bahia, Brazil. While several studies have described how environmental

216NGOs have worked with smallholders in Bahia,10 few have described how NGO strategies have

217altered smallholder land use and conservation practices, or how barriers to smallholder

218commercialization of NTFPs and native timbers limit program effectiveness (Scanlan Lyons

2192010; McGinty 2012). Furthermore, IFV has acknowledged a need to increase understanding of

220smallholder native tree knowledge, and noted that an ethnobotanical assessment would help

221contribute to its community development objectives. By approaching this study from the

222perspective of smallholder farmers in the area, focusing on their existing resource use and

2810 These include analyses of Agrarian Reform settlements (Cullen et al. 2005; Heredia et al. 2006) and the
29adaptations of smallholder cacao farmers to changing economic and ecological conditions (Alger & Caldas 1994;
30Ruf & Schroth 2004).
 12

223management, we hope to fill a gap that could lead to more focused and productive smallholder

224engagement in the future, and also to encourage a more explicit valuation and inclusion of

225traditional knowledge.

226

227SITE DESCRIPTION AND METHODS

228Site Description

229 The research sites were located in the municipalities of Itacaré and Uruçuca in southern

230Bahia, Brazil, with most of the fieldwork centered around the town of Serra Grande and the Serra

231do Conduru State Park (PESC) (Figures 1 and 2). The ecosystem consists of the tropical Atlantic

232Forest, considered one of the world’s most endangered biodiversity hotspots for its high levels of

233endemic species, overall species richness, and continuing vulnerability to anthropogenic threats

234(Martini et al. 2007; Myers et al. 2000). The climate is classified as a Köppen Af tropical rain

235forest, with an average monthly temperature of 24°C and annual average precipitation of 2000

236mm distributed evenly throughout the year (Piotto et al. 2009; Voeks 1996).

237

238[insert Figures 1 and 2 here]

239

240 The underlying geology consists mostly of Precambrian crystalline rocks and sediments,

241with a mix of oxisols (latosols), spodosols (podzols), and alluvial and sandy sediments (Martini

242et al. 2007). Coastal areas include the sandier spodosol soils with shrubbier restinga vegetation:

243these areas have low fertility but excellent drainage, providing ideal conditions for the piassava

244palm (Attalea funifera) and for crops such as pineapple (Ananas comosus). The eastern side of

245the PESC is dominated by oxisols, where the substrate originates from gneiss, and ultisols or
 13

246inceptisols, which originate from schists (PICUS 2005; Mark Ashton, pers. comm. 18 April

2472012). Common in tropical rainforests, these soils are heavily-leached, acidic, and nutrient-poor,

248requiring high inputs of organic matter to maintain fertility. West of the PESC, soils are

249dominated by alfisols and ultisols, which contain a higher organic nutrient content and have

250historically been more suitable for growing cacao (Theobroma cacao).

251 The land cover of the study area largely consists of small farms distributed over a hilly

252fragmented landscape of native secondary forest, current and former cabrucas,11 pasture, and

253small nuclei of urban development. Most of the interviews and fieldwork were conducted in the

254area east of the PESC, where IFV and MdV have concentrated most of their farmer outreach

255activities to promote small-scale organic farming, and to pay farmers for seed collection and

256seedling production.

257 Agricultural practices in southern Bahia vary depending on the history of the farmers in

258question. Both large and small landholders use agroforestry systems (AFS) within their

259properties, employing a range of methods that include cabruca, intercropping,12 homegardens,

260and living fences in AFS (Geyer et al. 2004). Traditional AFSs are shown to support a high

261diversity of native and introduced plant species that provide a variety of uses for medicine, food,

262and ecological services that also contribute to the economic viability of the system (Schulz &

263Becker 1994). In addition to cacao, common economic crops found in AFS have included black

264pepper (Piper nigrum), coconuts (Cocus nucifera), clove (Syzygium aromaticum), and rubber

265(Hevea brasiliensis) (Alvim & Nair 1986).

266 The more recently established farmers of Agrarian Reform settlements in southern Bahia

267have not focused as heavily on AFS, but still practice a diverse agriculture that includes

3111 Cabruca is the agroforestry system practiced in Bahia for growing cacao beneath shade trees.
3212 Intercropping is the cultivation of at least two crops in the same location such that different crop characteristics,
33such as differing growth habits and resource requirements, promote positive interactions between crops.
 14

268production of “pineapples, oranges, milk, passionfruit, corn, rice, sweet potatoes, tobacco…

269papayas…squash, acerola,13 eggs, cucumbers, okra, and tomatoes” (Heredia et al. 2006). Recent

270NGO efforts have also encouraged many small farmers to grow a variety of vegetables for sale to

271a luxury resort and local weekend markets (Scanlan Lyons 2010).

272 The extensive forest cover still found in the region is largely credited to the prior

273dominance of the cabruca agroforestry system for cacao (Saatchi et al. 2001). Landholders in the

274areas west of the PESC that cultivate cabrucas utilize large canopy forest trees as shade for the

275smaller cacao trees (Sambuichi et al. 2012; Johns 1999). The canopy trees regulate the

276microclimate, protect cacao trees from excessive sun, provide organic litter to the understory,

277and provide habitat for native flora and fauna (Ruf & Schroth 2004; Rice & Greenberg 2000).

278Cabruca systems, however, are largely absent from the east side of the PESC due to the nutrient-

279poor soils.

280 In 1989, the witches’ broom fungus (Moniliophthora perniciosa), a pathogen that had co-

281evolved with cacao in the Amazon, was inadvertently introduced in Bahia and devastated the

282state’s cacao production (Aime & Phillips-Mora 2005; Alger & Caldas 1994). Following this

283event, cacao was better able to survive in the cabrucas of smallholder farms rather than in larger

284estates due to the high-intensity management—such as pruning, grafting from healthier stocks,

285and burning of diseased branches—that is required to mitigate the disease’s damaging effects

286(Ruf & Schroth 2004). Additionally, many smallholder farmers who were previously laborers in

287the cacao or timber economies have worked to establish their own farms since those industries

288have declined (Scanlan Lyons 2010).

289 These farmers west of the PESC were interviewed to provide a perspective that has been

290less influenced by the programs of IFV and MdV, although one Agrarian Reform community we

3413 The Barbados cherry, Malphigia glabra.

 15

291visited had direct contact and familiarity with IFV’s projects. Visiting these cabruca areas also

292allowed us to observe sites representative of southern Bahia’s dominant social and agricultural

293identity, where cacao was the region’s golden commodity until the 1990s.

294 National and international tourism is expanding greatly in the coastal areas, especially

295after the construction of the direct highway from Salvador that, going south, passes through the

296towns of Valença, Camamu, Itacaré, and Ilheús (Scanlan Lyons 2010).14 To date, most of the

297positive and negative effects of the growing tourism economy are concentrated around Itacaré

298and along the beach (Scanlan Lyons 2010), while inland—as both NGO representatives and

299farmers reported to us—the establishment of private forest reserves and land speculation have

300led to a rise in land prices in recent years.15

301

302Methods

303 This study is a rapid social appraisal (Beebe 1995) of farmer land-use systems and

304engagement with NGOs, employing social science methods to gather data. Research spanned a

305period of approximately four months, including seven days of fieldwork in Bahia from 3 – 9

306March 2012. Prior to arrival in the field, we reviewed the academic and gray literature pertinent

307to our topic and to the region. Gray literature included reports published by IFV and member

308organizations of PICUS (Programa Integrado de Conservação e Uso Sustentável, or Integrated

309Program of Conservation and Sustainable Use), the State Government of Bahia, and other local

310organizations focused on the region’s social, institutional, and ecological context. Gray literature

311from IFV and MdV was also obtained during the assessment and reviewed for incorporation into

312our analysis.
3514 Interview with IFV tree nursery coordinator, 7 March 2012.
3615 Interviews with various farmers and IFV employees (3 – 7 March 2012).
 16

313 Methods in the field included participant observation, semi-structured interviews, focus

314groups (Bernard 2006), property walks, and property sketches. NGO and government contacts

315were established prior to fieldwork, and smallholder informants were identified through

316recommendations and snowball sampling (ibid.).16 IFV acted as our host and client and provided

317many of these contacts.17 In total, we interviewed eighteen farmers in eight different locations,

318three west of the PESC, and six east of the PESC, and conducted a group interview at an

319Agrarian Reform settlement, Nova Vida, on the western side of the PESC18. Fifteen of these

320farmers were currently engaged with either IFV, MdV, or both; most were involved with local

321farmers’ associations; and three were not currently engaged with NGOs, though had prior

322experience with them.19 IFV or MdV personnel were present as facilitators in all except two of

323the farmer interviews—which may have influenced farmer responses—and interviews ranged

324from one to three hours.

325 We obtained data on native and exotic priority tree species, including use and location on

326property; property size and condition of tenure; perspectives of conservation; experiences with

327NGOs; economic activity; decision-making and constraints experienced on farms; and oral land-

328use histories. Property walks with farmers and technicians yielded detailed information on tree

329species and allowed us to sketch cultivation sites and tree locations, as well as confirm tree

330species identities. Tree species were recorded in the field by common name as they were

3716 Snowball sampling is the identification of potential future informants upon the suggestion or recommendation of
38previous informants.
3917 The relationship with IFV was established through the graduate program. See Introduction to this issue.
4018 The expansion of the PESC’s boundaries in 2003 (Decreto de Desapropriação/Ampliação 8.702 de 4/11/2003)
41displaced some 120 families who were living within the new boundaries. Approximately 40 of these families, with
42the help of the Federation of Agricultural Workers of Bahia (FETAG-BA) and IFV, founded the 576-hectare Nova
43Vida settlement in 2006 on land purchased by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA)
44from an old cabruca estate (presentation by PESC director, 4 March 2010; interview with IFV technician, 7 March
452010; IFV Institutional Report 2010).
4619 One of these farmers did not currently have a relationship with either IFV or MdV.
 17

331freelisted by farmers, pointed out by farmers on the property, or observed on farmer property and

332later identified to scientific name using botanical guides and online databases.20

333 In addition to farmer interviews, we conducted thirteen interviews with personnel from

334IFV, MdV, the PESC, and the Tourism Office of Itacaré. These interviews yielded data on

335institutional perspectives on land-use, potential for smallholder economic development, and

336priority tree species. Several employees of IFV have smallholder farmer backgrounds and

337contributed to our data on native tree use.

338

339FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS

340Farmer Landholdings and Native Tree Use

341 While our small sample size, diversity of informant background, and varied level of NGO

342engagement discourage generalizations, some consistencies can be addressed. Farmer

343landholdings ranged in size from two to twenty-five hectares and averaged eleven hectares. Most

344farmers did not have written title, instead holding their land in posse, a form of squatter’s rights

345incurred through long-term occupation. Although posse is not a form of secure tenure, lack of

346written title was not a barrier to engagement with NGOs, but can pose obstacles to obtaining

347management plans necessary for establishment of legal reserves.21 Period of residence on

348smallholder properties ranged from six years (in the case of Nova Vida) to multiple generations,

349with a few farmers arriving within the last thirty years from other regions.

350 A total of 131 tree species were collectively cited by farmers and NGO personnel, or

351observed on farmer properties (Table 3). All farmers interviewed kept both native and exotic

4720 In particular, Flora do Brasil (http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/) provides geographical information to narrow down
48possible species given only the common name. Where more than one species is possible, we have indicated the other
49possibilities or only noted the genus.
5021 Interview with IFV technician, 7 March 2012.
 18

352trees on their properties. Exotic species (primarily Asian) were concentrated in homegardens,

353while natives were more common in cabrucas, AFS, and secondary forests. Major use areas on

354farmer properties can be divided into: homegardens, vegetable gardens, agroforests (further

355subdivided into cabruca, simple agroforestry system, or complex agroforestry system),22

356secondary forest or fallows (known as capoeira), seedling production areas, and areas for

357enclosed or freely-roaming domesticated animals, though not all of these zones are present on

358every property (Figures 3A and 3B). Further differences in land-use arrangement, and in

359principal crop choices, are addressed below.

360

361[insert figures 3A and 3B here, maps of farmer properties visited, or keep at end]

362

363 When asked to list important economic species, respondents focused on cacao

364(Theobroma cacao; cited by 52% of respondents), coconut (Cocos nucifera; 29% of

365respondents), bananas (Musa sp.; 39% of respondents), piassava (Attalea funifera; 13% of

366respondents), oil palm (Elaeis guineensis; 23% of respondents), and rubber (Hevea brasiliensis;

36716% of respondents). Additional species of exotic and native fruit trees on farmer landholdings

368are consumed at home, but other than the above-mentioned species, they do not currently form a

5122 The distinction between simple and complex AFS is not firm, but in general we observed complex AFS to
52comprise diverse, fluidly organized groves of exotic and native tree crops, containing 10 or more tree species, which
53provided fruits and other NTFPs for sale. These sites align most closely with “Multilayer Tree Gardens” as defined
54by the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). Simple agroforestry systems tended to consist of the intercropping of 3
55or 4 dominant economic tree species, with clearly delineated rows of annual crops planted between rows of trees.
56These align most closely with ICRAF’s definition for “Multipurpose Trees on Crop Lands.” Both systems involved
57tree, annual, and perennial crops, though simple AFS had fewer perennial crops. See
58http://www.worldagroforestry.org/units/Library/Books/Book%2032/an%20introduction%20to
59%20agroforestry/html/3_6_agroforestry_systems_and_practices.htm?n=16#table3.2 for full AFS definitions.
 19

369significant portion of smallholder income.23 While farmers are able to sell them in local markets,

370commercialization of native fruits has not customarily been a major economic activity.

371 All farmers interviewed were familiar with native tree species and able to name at least a

372dozen when asked to free-list important species. When more time was available and property

373walks possible, informants typically described over forty species and their uses (Table 3).24

374Several farmers not currently cultivating cupuaçu—a close relative of cacao—indicated this as a

375priority species with which they would like to work. Farmer knowledge of species included fruit

376dispersal mechanism, shade tolerance, growth habits, medicinal, food, and fiber uses, and

377management techniques such as propagation methods. In addition, farmers provided detailed

378knowledge related to species’ quality as timber, such as wood characteristics, color, availability,

379and suitability for use in construction, furniture, or artisanal products. Most farmers interviewed

380claimed to have knowledge of native tree qualities and uses for wood or other products prior to

381engagement with IFV or MdV. As some informants noted, however, a rural exodus due to rising

382land prices and lack of youth engagement in farming have resulted in a decrease of this

383knowledge in the region.25

384 Farmer management practices described or observed included planting of seeds and

385seedlings, weeding, transplanting tree seedlings, grafting (especially for cacao), coppicing,

386pruning, girdling,26 using fire to kill individual trees, producing compost from coconut husks, and

6023 Açaí (Euterpe oleracea), cupuaçu (Theobroma grandiflorum), and jaca (Artocarpus heterophyllus) provide
61additional income on some properties.
6224 Commonly cited species include sapucaia (Lecythis zabucajo), gindiba (Sloanea sp.), beriba (Eschweilera ovata
63or Rollinia mucosa), pau-brasil (Caesalpinia echinata), pequí (Caryocar brasiliense), and conduru (Brosimum
64rubescens. See Table 3 for details on all species cited.
6525 Interview with farmer (5 March 2012) and IFV technician (7 March 2012).
6626 Coppicing involves the periodic cutting back of woody species to the ground typically every 5 – 10 years in order
67to encourage resprouting and growth of branches that provide a source of fuelwood and forage. Pruning is the
68selective removal of tree branches to restrict growth, control the form of a tree, or encourage resprouting of the
69branches. Girdling involves removing a strip of bark (including the xylem and phloem) around the entire
70circumference of the tree in order to kill the tree while leaving it upright.
 20

387creating organic fertilizer from leaves, legumes, or chicken manure and grass. Farmers working

388with cacao employed grafting as a technique to manage the witches’ broom fungus, choosing

389healthy scions to establish trees more resistant to the disease (Figure 4). Two of the farmers also

390indicated that they rotate cultivation areas to allow the soil to rest.

391[insert Figure 4 here]

392Effects of NGO Engagement

393 While both NGO-associated and unassociated farmers manage complex, diversified

394agricultural systems, elements of landholding spatial arrangement differ between these two

395categories. Farmers working with either of the two NGOs have altered their land-use practices

396and, in some cases, their priority crops. When farm visits were possible, we observed that both

397categories of farmers have multiple types of use areas (homegarden, vegetable garden,

398agroforest, secondary forest, seedling production area, and animal areas) on their property, but

399that the form of some of these areas varied between NGO and non-NGO farmers. With regard to

400the kind of agroforestry arrangement utilized, differences were conceptual as well as observable.

401Mecenas da Vida representatives distinguished between cabruca and AFS, characterizing AFS as

402more diverse, adaptable, and sustainable than cabruca, indicating its positive effect on the soil

403and even referring to cabruca as a kind of monoculture. However, we did not observe higher

404species richness in NGO-farmer AFS when compared to cabrucas of non-NGO farmers,27 though

405again, our small sample size limits our ability to make broad generalizations. Referencing the

406diversity of his cabruca, one farmer said, “What’s the difference between this forest and a real

407forest?”28

7127 The AFS of non-NGO farmers that include cacao under shade trees meets the basic definition of a cabruca
72(Sambuichi et al. 2012), as well as the ICRAF definition for “Plantation Crop Combinations.”
7328 Interview with farmer, 5 March 2012.
 21

408 We did observe differences in spatial arrangement and richness between “complex”

409agroforestry systems (including cabruca and AFS) and what we are referring to as “simple”

410agroforestry systems on a non-NGO farmer property, which included only two to four tree

411species utilized in conjunction with manioc (Manihot esculenta), corn (Zea mays), beans

412(Phaseolus vulgaris), and bananas. In these systems, widely-spaced coconut or oil palm was the

413most abundant tree, with native and exotic fruit trees scattered in the understory. On at least two

414farms, small, homogeneous rubber stands of fewer than 50 trees each were found within mixed

415groves of cacao, native fruit, and other multipurpose tree species. The homegardens of NGO and

416non-NGO farmers were similarly diverse, incorporating ornamentals and native and exotic fruit

417trees. These systems are typically characterized as “traditional” and reflect farmer knowledge of

418and continual experimentation with the tree species present (Schulz & Becker 1994). Examples

419of these different agroforestry systems can be seen in Figure 5.

420

421[insert Figure 5 here]

422

423 Farmers working with IFV had larger and more diverse seedling production areas than

424those not engaged with IFV, as these farmers were producing seedlings to sell to IFV for

425restoration projects rather than for use on their own property. Though not true for all cases, IFV

426farmers also tended to have larger and more diverse vegetable gardens, as IFV places importance

427on the production of greens for local high-end markets. Between the NGO and non-NGO

428farmers, we did not observe differences in the size of legal reserves or in the interest in

429maintaining them. Many farmers, while not able to pay for the formal establishment of a legal

430reserve on their properties (which can cost R$5000 – 6000, or US$2777 - 3330 at time of study),
 22

431nevertheless held around fifty percent of their land in forest.29 An additional important activity

432for IFV farmers was the raising of galinha caipira (country chicken) in enclosed coops, which

433IFV has promoted heavily to support farmers’ diversification strategies.30 Non-NGO farmers

434raised chickens, ducks, and pigs, but animals were not confined and moved freely throughout

435homegardens and agroforests.

436 All smallholders—whether or not they were affiliated with NGOs—formerly practiced

437swidden agriculture but have converted to permanent systems both as the result of NGO

438engagement and the claim that they had gained an “environmental awareness” (discussed below).

439In swidden systems, manioc was prioritized, though cacao, coconut, bananas, rubber, and oil

440palm were also important crops. These species remain the principal sources of income for many

441farmers, but manioc has decreased in importance, and fruit trees and vegetables have increased in

442importance for smallholders associated with NGOs. For some farmers, greens currently provide a

443major source of income. It is unclear to what degree farmers employed traditional forms of

444agroforestry outside of homegardens before engagement with NGOs, but, as their familiarity

445with numerous tree species and their uses demonstrates, farmers had extensive knowledge of

446native species before exposure to species knowledge introduced by NGOs.

447 NGOs may also be contributing to the preservation of traditional knowledge of tree

448species by encouraging AFS and by assisting farmers in identifying alternative and diversified

449income streams, increasing their capacity to remain on their land. IFV expressed the worry that

450traditional knowledge of smallholders, especially knowledge of native tree species, was being

451lost, and current circumstances out of their control (such as rising land prices and the designation

452of farmer lands as protected areas) were responsible for this process. A twenty-one year-old

7429 Interview with IFV technician, 7 March 2012.

7530 Ibid.
 23

453farmer was present at a focus group conducted with Mecenas da Vida and nine of their partner

454farmers, but the farmers present conceded that “not very many young people know how to work

455in the fields.”31 A researcher who has studied the traditional uses of plants with IFV also believed

456“the agrarian culture is disappearing, as the youth do not return to the fields.”32 In a later meeting

457with IFV, the director echoed this observation and addressed a “change in culture of farmers,”

458claiming that children are less familiar with agricultural work than their parents and previous

459generations. In order to address knowledge loss and encourage appreciation and technical

460knowledge of the forest, IFV is implementing a “Forest School” that trains local farmers in

461restoration techniques and draws on existing timber knowledge of smallholders. Through

462capacity-building workshops, IFV will educate youth and adults from surrounding communities

463in forest ecology and management, including management of forest resources. The Forest School

464may thus provide additional opportunities and incentives for farmers to remain on their lands, but

465trainings are likely to focus more on farmers’ contributions to reforestation activities rather than

466other traditional uses of trees.33

467

468Barriers to Increased Income Generation and to NGO engagement

469 Barriers to increased marketing of or income generation from farm products are similar

470for NGO and non-NGO farmers. These include access and transport to markets, weak soil, the

471difficulty of obtaining organic fertilizer for those working with AFS, and pests. In the case of one

472farmer interviewed, a program operated by the county government provides a market for his and

47380 other farmers’ agricultural products in schools. However, he has no other markets for most of

7631 Focus group with Mecenas da Vida and partner farmers, 6 March 2012.
7732 Conversation on 9 March 2012.
7833 Unpublished IFV Training Proposal, May 2013. See also http://www.florestaviva.org.br/index.php/41-escola-da-
79floresta/59-escola-da-floresta-2. Accessed 11 May 2013.
 24

474his agricultural products, and he acknowledged that this program could end should the

475government change hands.34

476 Access to fertilizer is also difficult for many farmers. Though some farmers produce

477fertilizer on-site using chicken manure, manioc skins, grass, and other organic material, those

478cultivating AFS under Mecenas da Vida’s program must often purchase organic fertilizer off-site

479to comply with MdV’s organic production requirements. Several cited this as a key difficulty and

480financial burden.35 NGO personnel also argued that because smallholders face economic

481insecurity, they may be inflexible or unable to experiment with new species or techniques that

482require a long time frame to realize a return.

483 Additionally, buyers of agricultural products may require consistency of product quality

484and availability, criteria difficult to meet through organic farming. Txai, a local resort, buys

485vegetables from 18 farmers of an agricultural cooperative but demands consistently high-quality

486products.36 The tourism office in Itacaré also expressed interest in linking farmers with

487restaurants and inns, as well as creating agrotourism excursions to cabrucas, but a lack of

488government commitment and frequent turnover of leadership and personnel have hindered the

489development of these projects.37

490 Barriers to farmer engagement with NGOs include issues of capacity as well as

491perception. While some have difficulty in transitioning from conventional agriculture, others

492expressed negative opinions of AFS and the production of greens when compared to cacao. Due

493to its long history in the region, cacao has the reputation of a desirable, “elite” crop that farmers

494perceive as providing a secure return, in contrast to the perceived uncertainty of the potential for

8034 Interview with farmer, 5 March 2012.

8135 Focus group with Mecenas da Vida partner farmers, 6 March 2012; farmers in this program are not permitted to
82use chemical fertilizer.
8336 Interview with president of farmer cooperative, 8 March 2012.
8437 Interview with tourism office representative, 8 March 2012.
 25

495AFS and greens to generate income. Mecenas da Vida claims to address these barriers by turning

496farmers into “technicians” who can teach each other, spreading AFS practices to neighbors. Both

497IFV and MdV, however, face ongoing difficulties with financing their work from project to

498project, rendering continuity difficult.

499

500Farmer Experiences with NGOs

501 Farmer opinion was positive with regard to experience working with NGOs, and NGOs

502describe their engagement with farmers as having beneficial effects. According to both farmers

503and NGO personnel, farmer involvement with AFS and seedling production has vastly improved

504their confidence and increased their income. A leader of MdV suggested that the programs have

505helped farmers reduce the “shame” of growing vegetables in a region where cacao is known as

506the elite crop.

507 An IFV technician described the first goal of working with farmers as the improvement

508of self-esteem. Using dynamic teaching techniques and employing a tree metaphor, they have

509encouraged farmers to identify the root as the source of the problem, which leads up the trunk

510and out to the branches where solutions can be found. This example of a “Participatory Rural

511Diagnostic” tool is designed to engage farmers and educate them about the forest. This

512technician also described the changes in farmer attitudes as being one of the most overlooked yet

513important accomplishments, noting that people feel more capable, like the “owners of their own

514happiness,” once they become engaged with IFV projects.38 Mecenas da Vida similarly noted

515that after working with AFS, farmers “have more confidence” and “can express themselves

516better.” One farmer stated that “a sack only stands up when full,” and that he “was an empty

8538 Interview with IFV employee, 7 March 2012.

 26

517sack” before becoming part of MdV’s program. In addition to increased confidence, the

518increased income from involvement with IFV has permitted at least one farmer to build a new

519house, and MdV farmers claimed that they are eating better since their engagement with AFS.

520Income has also increased for the farmers participating in these programs. In IFV’s organic

521vegetable program, some farmers were earning R$1000 (US$432) per month in 2009 (Scanlan

522Lyons 2010), while currently 18 farmers receive a stipend worth R$320 (US$178) per month

523from the Txai resort.39 IFV also estimates that farmers who have joined Embauba—a local

524farmers’ association started by IFV—have increased their incomes by 150% on average (IFV

5252010).40

526 In contrast to these positive accounts, another farmer who had formerly partnered with

527both IFV and MdV referred to the programs as a “crutch” and addressed the tension between

528participating and non-participating farmers. He prefers to earn an income simply from what he

529grows, rather than rely on a stipend. IFV acknowledges that initially, it acted too paternalistically

530and may still face this problem by not finding ways to help people move beyond its programs; it

531is a question of helping farmers “move ahead without carrying them too much.”41 Embauba,

532which has since separated from the NGO, offers an example of a successful shift from reliance to

533independence that demonstrates IFV’s preferred strategy. A member of Embauba stated: “we had

534to learn to walk on our own two feet.”42 After 10 years of receiving help from both IFV and Txai

535with native seedlings and chicken production, Embauba now operates community manioc, fruit,

8639 Interview with farmer, 8 March 2012.

8740 Unfortunately, the timeframe or factors that may have led to these income increases are not stated in the report.
88Accurate farm-level incomes for southern Bahia were not available, but one study in 2005 of farmers in southern
89Bahia participating in an agroforestry extension program found average annual incomes of R$5,372 (US$2,066) per
90year (McGinty et al. 2008), suggesting incomes in the region have not changed appreciably in the past 7 years.
9141 Interview with IFV employee, 7 March 2012.
9242 Interview with farmer, 5 March 2012.
 27

536oil palm, coconut oil, and piassava processing equipment, and will soon begin operating a small

537fruit pulp processing plant built with a grant of R$25,000 received from a bank.43

538 Other farmers who do not currently partner with IFV or MdV are involved with

539government programs that buy their produce, or have received credit and technical support from

540PRONAF (the National Program for Strengthening Family Agriculture). Agrarian Reform

541communities work through their local association with INCRA (the National Institute of

542Colonization and Agrarian Reform) to receive land grants and related support for infrastructure,

543water access, titling, and agriculture. IFV noted, however, that INCRA has dominated the

544ongoing work with Agrarian Reform communities and ordered IFV to stay out of development

545work with Nova Vida, presumably in order to “take credit” for any successes.44

546

547Farmer Perceptions of Conservation

548 Our data also indicate a strong change in farmer perception toward conservation and

549swidden agriculture as a result of NGO engagement. Smallholders admit that they initially faced

550many difficulties due to the enforcement of environmental legislation and the establishment of

551the PESC. Those living within the park were given very little notification about their need to

552relocate and were not well-compensated for their land.45 The prohibition of swidden agriculture

553and hunting cut farmers off from their sources of income and means of subsistence. Many

554smallholders had also worked in the logging industry, but the closing in 1998 of more than 300

555sawmills left many farmers without this additional source of revenue.46 Despite these initial

9343 Interview with farmer, 8 March 2012.

9444 Discussion with IFV technician, 7 March 2012.
9545 Families were compensated by being paid the expected value of their lost agricultural production, but were not
96compensated for the price of their land.
9746 Discussion with IFV director, 3 March 2012.
 28

556struggles, both NGO and non-NGO smallholders have come to hold positive views about

557conservation and the need for environmental regulations. In many cases, they have adopted

558environmentalist language to express these perceptions. The leader of the Nova Vida settlement,

559who wore a PESC t-shirt to our focus group, characterized his community as aspiring toward

560“preservation with a better life,” and said that he was satisfied with the park.47 Others claimed

561that the law is a “good school” for people, and that there would not be any forest left without it.48

562 The director of MdV described their work as a project of transforming farmers into

563“agents of conservation” and helping them to “work in a more conscious way” in order to

564become “guardians of nature.”49 For this transformation to occur and for farmers to receive the

565monthly stipend provided by MdV, they must abide by a set of rules established by MdV. This

566includes an agreement to plant seedlings, to attend capacity-building workshops, and to send

567their children to school, while refraining from burning vegetation, hunting, or using chemical

568fertilizers. Farmers agreed that before, they “didn’t have an environmental awareness,” were

569“destroyers of the forest,” and “killed the soil,” but that now they have come to recognize the

570need to conserve and to refrain from cutting and burning, that now they “have the knowledge.”

571 However, there may be contradictions between what farmers express to support the

572programs in which they participate, and their more candid opinions about their lives and land-use

573practices in the past. For example, several farmers who lauded MdV’s programs also argued that

574their past activities had a low environmental impact and helped to preserve nature. And, while

575farmers believed their former swidden practices contributed to deforestation of the region, other

576smallholders stressed the role of the timber industry in the large-scale deforestation that occurred

9847 Interview/focus group with Nova Vida community, 5 March 2012.

9948 Interview with farmer, 9 March 2012.
10049 Focus group with Mecenas da Vida and partner farmers, 6 March 2012.
 29

577in the 1980s and ‘90s. One informant stated that before the arrival of the sawmills, “virgin”

578forest was always present, allowing swidden cultivators to cut new areas.

579

580Implications of NGO strategy

581 Regardless of their current level of engagement with NGOs, farmers share various

582priorities and perceptions with NGOs, including the desire to remain on their land and a belief in

583the necessity of conservation. Both IFV and MdV are working with farmers to help them adjust

584to new legal paradigms and to take advantage of new opportunities to generate income through

585restoration and tourism. In the process of engaging with NGOs, farmers may alter their land-use

586patterns or priority crops to align with NGO projects as well as their perceptions of past land-use.

587As mentioned above, both NGO-engaged and non-engaged farmers believe that conservation

588measures, such as the creation of protected areas and presence of legal reserves on property, are

589necessary, despite hardships these measures may have initially caused. At least one of our non-

590NGO-engaged respondents also indicated that he does not believe swiddening is a sustainable

591use of the land. It is possible that prior experience with NGOs, receiving assistance from

592INCRA, or exposure to “environmental education” programs have contributed to these changed

593perceptions among non-NGO engaged farmers. Additionally, with the exception of two

594interviews, NGO personnel were present at every farmer interview, likely having an influence on

595respondents’ statements. During the focus group with MdV, the director occasionally indicated a

596particular farmer to respond and even periodically answered for farmers.

597 The limited time of the rapid appraisal methodology renders the assessment of

598informants’ true opinions difficult. However, it is clear that NGOs attempt to change farmer

599behavior partly through influencing their perceptions of past land-use systems and associating
 30

600these systems with environmental degradation, precisely the other problem (in addition to rural

601poverty) that socio-environmental NGOs seek to address. Explanations about deforestation of the

602Atlantic Forest have often implicated swidden agriculture, rapid population growth, and the

603expansion of commodity agriculture (Dean 1995; CEPF 2001). In Brazilian society, attitudes

604persist that small farmers are responsible for deforestation, despite the fact that in southern

605Bahia, most deforestation has been at the hands of large landowners (Scanlan Lyons 2010; Alger

606& Caldas 1994). Subsidized loans for land clearing, high inequality of landholdings, and unstable

607economic opportunities have promoted rapid deforestation even while the numbers of people

608living in rural areas have decreased in the twentieth century (Frickmann Young 2003). By

609linking smallholder land-use with deforestation, socio-environmental NGOs endeavor to reduce

610this perceived impact by changing farmer behavior and alleviating poverty through market

611mechanisms, to address “ecology and economics together,” in the words of one employee.

612Through this contradictory process, there is risk that historical explanations become over-

613simplified, perceptions of environmental degradation are altered, and that activities are pursued

614without clear connections to the problems that they claim to address.

615

616Overcoming Barriers, New Opportunities

617 In light of these considerations, we revisit questions introduced above: can NGOs provide

618farmers new opportunities without creating negative perceptions of their past land-use systems?

619By linking rural poverty and conservation, are NGOs most effectively positioning farmers to take

620advantage of new opportunities or recasting them as part of the problem? NGOs may find

621themselves in a uniquely influential position to drive the course of smallholder economic

622activities. Given this, it is important to critically assess how changes in farmer economic
 31

623activities are implemented. While its effects on the environment are debated,50 swidden

624agriculture is not viable within the current legal reality, and NGOs are working to assist farmers

625in the transition to other land-use systems. As emphasized by an employee of IFV, it is important

626for farmers to maintain a diversity of production systems that provide both long and short-term

627returns, such as vegetable gardens, chicken coops, and agroforests. If farmers are assured of at

628least some income from short-term returns and are able to achieve a degree of economic stability,

629they may be more willing to experiment with new species or techniques.

630 Various options promoted by IFV and MdV, such as AFS, include systems or species

631with which farmers are already familiar, though NGO engagement may expose farmers to some

632new species or management practices, especially in relation to native seedling production.

633However, because farmer knowledge is extensive, NGOs may better serve as networks among

634farmers in addition to serving as sources of technical support. IFV and MdV could also support

635farmers and farmer associations by investing further in establishing a secure network of buyers

636for organic agricultural products, as with the Txai resort, and by addressing barriers such as

637transport of products to markets. While NGOs are currently interested in further developing

638production of native fruits and other NTFPs, such efforts will yield little return if farmers

639continue to face difficulty with market access. The case of Embauba offers a successful example

640of a transition from NGO assistance to autonomous management of logistics, especially in the

641processing of farm products. However, the acquisition of necessary equipment is still often

642dependent on loans and donations. In a supportive role, NGOs could focus efforts on assisting

10150 A pattern of swidden agriculture with long fallows could help maintain the high levels of biodiversity found in the
102Atlantic Forest and other tropical forests. Hypothesized as one contributor to high levels of tropical biodiversity,
103“intermediate disturbance” regimes are created by swidden agriculture, which opens light gaps that allow many key
104hardwood tree species—which are typically shade-intolerant and late successional—to thrive. In contrast, a history
105of logging through high-grading, which selects only the largest individuals, impoverishing the genetic make-up of a
106population, would quickly reduce the populations of hardwoods by leaving insufficient light gaps for their
107regeneration (pers. comm. with Mark Ashton, 4 March 2012). See Connell 1978 for theoretical background and
108Martini et al. 2007 for an example from the Atlantic Forest.
 32

643associations with loan acquisition, market linkage, and access to useful government programs.

644However, as both farmers and NGO employees indicated to us, the continued reliance on

645stipends could create long-term dependence.

646 IFV and MdV are indirectly addressing loss of ecological knowledge by increasing the

647capacity of farmers to remain on their land, and IFV’s Forest School may provide further

648incentive and opportunity to strengthen bonds with the forest. A more explicit way to address

649knowledge loss could be through the establishment of native timber projects, considering that

650farmers have extensive knowledge on the timber characteristics of native species. IFV is

651currently considering such projects, yet it is very difficult for smallholder farmers to make use of

652native timbers within the current legal setting. Obtaining access to harvest and sell the standing

653timber, often the highest-value product of forests, may require navigating bureaucratic hurdles,

654corruption, and unequal enforcement of the law (Larson & Ribot 2007). Additionally, the

655restrictive Atlantic Forest laws preclude incentives for sustainable forestry production and may

656ironically exacerbate deforestation by prohibiting it, which has previously been observed in

657southern Brazil (Hodge et al. 1997).51

658 During our fieldwork, one cacao farmer explained that in order to harvest a high-quality

659native timber tree on his land, such as vinhático (Plathymenia foliosola), he would be required to

660plant, register, and georeference the tree with IBAMA, and even then he would only be permitted

661to harvest it for personal rather than commercial use.52 Farmers at the Agrarian Reform

662community Nova Vida attempted to get permission to harvest native woods to build their houses,

663but the process of approval took months, and they finally decided to buy treated but poor quality

10951 In this example, Decree 750 of 1993 prohibited all extractive and agricultural activities in areas of the Atlantic
110forests that had advanced beyond the earliest stages of forest regeneration. In Santa Catarina, this prompted
111smallholder farmers to cut down larger standing forests more rapidly in order to create land they would be allowed
112to farm, even though such land was often of poor fertility.
11352 Interview and field walk with farmer, 5 March 2012.
 33

664Eucalyptus from outside the community. One IFV employee believes the laws are so strict that

665the only product that can be legally harvested from the forest for sale on the market is the fiber of

666the piassava palm. However, the executive secretary of IFV indicated that it is possible for a

667small farmer to register and establish an experimental plot of marketable cedro (Cedrela

668odorata), a valuable hardwood species. The director of IFV also expressed hope that small

669farmers would one day be able to sell 1 – 2 year old saplings of cedro as ornamental (i.e. potted)

670plants for approximately R$50 (US$28 at time of study),53 a situation that would not require the

671authorizations associated with a native tree planted in the ground. Therefore, barring changes to

672restrictive policies, these NGOs may be able to help farmers navigate existing bureaucratic

673hurdles and take advantage of government incentives and opportunities they might not be able to

674access on their own.

675

676CONCLUSION

677 Smallholder farming in southern Bahia is highly diversified, employing varied long and

678short-term production methods that increase the adaptability of farmers to changing market and

679ecological conditions. Historically, farmers have relied on important cash crops such as cacao,

680coconut, and manioc, but the use of homegardens, agroforests, vegetable gardens, secondary

681forest, and raising of animals result in perennially diverse systems providing dozens of products

682beyond major economic species. Farmers formerly practiced swidden agriculture as a primary

683agricultural method, but recent legal restrictions associated with conservation of the Atlantic

684Forest have necessitated a shift away from this technique. In this process, socio-environmental

685NGOs have emerged as important actors in the social and conservationist landscape, attempting

11453 Interview with IFV personnel, 9 March 2012.

 34

686to address both rural poverty and loss of biodiversity by engaging farmers in the restoration

687process and linking them with new markets.

688 At the same time, new opportunities and threats are arriving with the changing economics

689of the region, especially around the growing tourism economy, experimentation with organic

690agriculture and high-value horticultural products, and a growing “environmental consciousness”

691among small family farmers (Scanlan Lyons 2010). As the priority of conservation in the region

692grows, more people may even be able to work as “environmental agents” for IBAMA. Ten

693young residents of the Nova Vida community recently completed training in Salvador for this

694very purpose. Yet such changing opportunities beg the question of who gets left out, what gets

695lost in the transition, and whether many of the smallholder families will be able to adapt

696successfully. As one cacao farmer expressed, he believes that “the people can’t live in the city,

697they have to live from the fields,”54 emphasizing his perspective that remaining landed is a

698priority for many rural peoples.

699 Furthermore, the interactions of smallholder farming with socio-environmental NGOs

700such as IFV and MdV alter not only land-use practices, but also farmer perceptions of past

701agricultural methods and of conservation. Although such changes in perception aid the

702conservationist cause, and even increase farmer self-esteem and pride, the means by which these

703transformations occur may disregard or obscure existing farmer knowledge. However, by

704supporting smallholder production, IFV and MdV increase the ability of farmers to remain on

705their land and may thereby contribute to knowledge conservation.

706 Farmer perspectives on the effect of NGOs on their economic life vary, with some

707criticizing them for creating a cycle of dependency, while others praise the environmental

708consciousness and income diversification that these programs have brought them. NGOs can

11554 Interview and field walk with farmer, 5 March 2012.

 35

709provide valuable services to small farmers, but focusing efforts on changing smallholder land-

710use practices may obscure larger-scale social and political drivers of economic and land-use

711change. While experimentation with native timber and fruit commercialization should continue,

712IFV and MdV may be better suited to act as facilitative networks among farmers and as links to

713markets and government programs. Such a shift would require both NGOs to continue to view

714their learning process as a two-way street, looking for ways to incorporate farmer knowledge

715into a collaborative approach that sees farmers increasingly as colleagues. Through its Forest

716School, for example, IFV is improving collaborative efforts by engaging farmers in the

717restoration process. The remarkable enhancement of self-esteem that these programs have

718achieved, as well as the acknowledgement among all actors that programs should empower

719farmers rather than create dependence, indicate that both NGOs are moving in the right direction.

720The greatest challenge will be in adapting to rapidly changing and unpredictable economic

721conditions that these farmers and NGOs increasingly face.

 36

722REFERENCES

723Aime, M.C., and W Phillips-Mora. 2005. “The causal agents of witches’ broom and frosty pod
724 rot of cacao (chocolate, Theobroma cacao) form a new lineage of Marasmiaceae.”
725 Mycologia 97(5): 1012–22.

726Alger, K., and M. Caldas. 1994. “The Declining Cocoa Economy and the Atlantic Forest of
727 Southern Bahia, Brazil: Conservation Attitudes of Cocoa Planters.” The Environmentalist
728 14(2): 107–119.

729Alvim, R., and PKR Nair. 1986. “Combination of cacao with other plantation crops: an
730 agroforestry system in Southeast Bahia, Brazil.” Agroforestry Systems 1(13): 3-15.

731Bebbington, A., Thiele, G., Davies, P., Prager, M., and Riveros, H. 1993. Non-Governmental
732 Organizations and the State in Latin America: Rethinking roles in sustainable
733 agricultural development. Overseas Development Institute. London: Routledge.

734Beebe, J. 1995. “Basic Concepts and Techniques of Rapid Appraisal.” Human Organization.
735 54(1):42-51.

736Begossi, A. 1999. “Scale of Interactions of Brazilian Populations (Caiçaras and Caboclos) with
737 Resources and Institutions.” Human Ecology Review 6(1): 1–7.

738Bernard, H.R. 2006. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative

739 Approaches. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

740Brancalion, P.H.S. et al. 2011. “Improving Planting Stocks for the Brazilian Atlantic Forest
741 Restoration through Community-Based Seed Harvesting Strategies.” Restoration Ecology:
742 2-8.

743Calmon, M., Brancalion, P.H.S., Paese, A., Aronson, J., Castro, P., Silva, S.C., Rodrigues, R.R.
744 2011. “Emerging threats and opportunities for large-scale ecological restoration in the
745 Atlantic Forest of Brazil.” Restoration Ecology, 19, 54-158.

746Conklin, H. C. 1957. Hanunóo Agriculture: A Report on an Integral System of Shifting

747 Cultivation in the Philippines. Rome: FAO.

748Connell, J.H. 1978. “Diversity in Tropical Rain Forests and Coral Reefs.” Science 199(4335):
749 1302–10.

750Crawford, C. and G. Pignataro. 2007. “The Insistent (and Unrelenting) Challenges of Protecting
751 Biodiversity in Brazil: Finding the Law That Sticks.” University of Miami Inter-
752 American Law Review 39(1): 1-65.
 37

753Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF). 2001. Ecosystem Profile: Atlantic Forest
754 biodiversity Hotspot, Brazil.

755Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF). 2005. Atlantic Forest Hotspot: Brazil Briefing
756 Book.

757Cullen Jr, L., K. Alger, and D.M. Rambaldi. 2005. “Land Reform and Biodiversity Conservation
758 in Brazil in the 1990s: Conflict and the Articulation of Mutual Interests.” Conservation
759 Biology 19(3): 747–755.

760de Castro, F., A.D. Siqueira, E.S. Brondizio, and L.C. Ferreira. 2006. “Use and Misuse of the
761 Concepts of Tradition and Property Rights in the Conservation of Natural Resources in
762 the Atlantic Forest (Brazil).” Ambiente & Sociedade 9(1): 23–39.

763Dean, W. 1995. With Broadax and Firebrand: the Destruction of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest.
764 University of California Press: Berkeley, CA.

765Diegues, A.C. 1994. O Mito Moderno da Natureza Intocada. [The Modern Myth of Untouched
766 Nature]. São Paulo: Núcleo de Apoio à Pesquisa sobre Populações Humanas e Áreas
767 Úmidas Brasilerias-Universidade de São Paulo.

768Ditt, E.H, Knight, J.D., Mourato, S., et al. 2008. “Defying legal protection of Atlantic Forest in
769 the transforming landscape around the Atibainha reservoir, south-eastern Brazil.”
770 Landscape and Urban Planning, 86, 276-283.

771Dove, M.R. 1993. “A revisionist view of tropical deforestation and development.”

772 Environmental conservation 20(1).

773Ferreira, L. da C. 2003. “Dimensões humanas da biodiversidade: Mudanças sociais e conflitos

774 em torno de areas protegidas no Vale do Ribeira, SP, Brasil.” [Social changes and
775 conflicts around protected areas in the Ribeira Vallye, SP, Brazil]. Ambiente e Sociedade,
776 7, 47-67.

777Frickmann Young, C.E. 2003. Socioeconomic Causes of Deforestation in the Atlantic Forest of
778 Brazil. In: Galindo-Leal, C., and Gusmão Câmara, I., editors. The Atlantic Forest of
779 South America: biodiversity status, threats and outlook. Island Press, Washington, D.C.,
780 USA.

781Geyer, W., Dube, F. & Couto, L. 2004. “Overview of agroforestry practices in southeastern
782 Brazil.” Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science, 107, 143-147.

783Heredia, B., Medeiros, L., Palmeira, M., Cintrao, R. & Leite, S.P. 2006. “Regional impacts of
784 land reform in Brazil.” in Promised Land: Competing Visions of Agrarian Reform. (eds
785 P. Rosset, R. Patel & M. Courville), pp. 277–300. Institute for Food and Development
786 Policy, Food First Books, New York.
 38

787Hochstetler, Kathryn and Margaret E. Keck. 2007. Greening Brazil: Environmental Activism in
788 State and Society. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

789Hodge, Sandra, Maike Hering De Queiroz, and Ademir Reis. 1997. “Brazil’s National Atlantic
790 Forest Policy: A Challenge for State-level Environmental Planning. The Case of Santa
791 Catarina, Brazil.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 40(3): 335-348.

792Instituto de Floresta Viva (IFV). 2010. Relatório Institucional [Institutional Report].

793 Unpublished.

794Johns, N.D. 1999. Conservation in Brazil’s Chocolate Forest: The Unlikely Persistence of the
795 Traditional Cocoa Agroecosystem. Environmental Management, 23, 31-47.

796Larson, Anne M., and Jesse C. Ribot. 2007. “The poverty of forestry policy: double standards on
797 an uneven playing field.” Sustainability Science 2(2): 189-204.

798Martini, A.M.Z., Fiaschi, P., Amorim, A.M. & Paixão, J.L.D. 2007. “A hot-point within a hot-
799 spot: a high diversity site in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest.” Biodiversity and Conservation, 16,
800 3111-3128.

801McGinty, M.M. 2012. Native forest tree conservation in tropical agroforests: Case study of
802 cacao farms in the Atlantic Forest of southern Bahia, Brazil. PhD Dissertation, Columbia
803 University.

804McGinty, M.M., M.E. Swisher, and J. Alavalapati. 2008. “Agroforestry adoption and
805 maintenance: self-efficacy, attitudes and socio-economic factors.” Agroforestry Systems
806 73(2): 99–108.

807Moreau, M. 2003. “Planejamento do Uso da Terra na Zona Tampão do Parque Estadual da Serra
808 do Conduru no Litoral Sul da Bahia.” [Land Use Planning in the Buffer Zone of the Serra
809 do Conduru State Park in the South Coast of Bahia]. Doctoral Dissertation, Universidade
810 Federal de Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil.

811Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca, and J. Kent. 2000.
812 “Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.” Nature 403(24): 853-858.

813Penna-Firme, R, and E Brondizio. 2007. “The Risks of Commodifying Poverty: Rural

814 Communities, Quilombola Identity, and Nature Conservation in Brazil.” Habitus 5(2):
815 355-373.

816Piotto, D., Montagnini, F., Thomas, W., Ashton, M. & Oliver, C. 2009. Forest recovery after
817 swidden cultivation across a 40-year chronosequence in the Atlantic forest of southern
818 Bahia, Brazil. Plant Ecology, 205, 261-272.

819Programa Integrado de Conservação e Uso Sustentável da Biodiversidade (PICUS) [Integrated

820 Program for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity]. 2005. Biodiversidade,
 39

821 Ecoturismo, e Agroflorestas no Litoral Sul da Bahia [Biodiversity, Ecotourism, and

822 Agroforests in the South Coast of Bahia].

823Piotto, D., Montagnini, F., Thomas, W., Ashton, M. & Oliver, C. 2009. Forest recovery after
824 swidden cultivation across a 40-year chronosequence in the Atlantic forest of southern
825 Bahia, Brazil. Plant Ecology, 205, 261-272.

826Rice, R.A. & Greenberg, R. 2000. “Cacao Cultivation and the Conservation of Biological
827 Diversity.” AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 29, 167–173.

828Rocheleau, Dianne et al. 2001. “Complex Communities and Emergent Ecologies in the Regional
829 Agroforest of Zambrana-Chacuey, Dominican Republic.” Ecumene 8(4): 465-492.

830Rodrigues, Ricardo R. et al. 2009. “On the restoration of high diversity forests: 30 years of
831 experience in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest.” Biological Conservation 142(6): 1242-1251.

832Ruf, F. & Schroth, G. 2004. Chocolate forests and monocultures: a historical review of cocoa
833 growing and its conflicting role in tropical deforestation and forest conservation. In:
834 Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes. (eds G. Schroth,
835 G.A.B. da Fonseca, C.A. Harvey, C. Gascon, H.L. Vasconcelos & A.M.N. Izac), pp. 120-
836 147. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

837Saatchi, S. et al. 2001. “Examining fragmentation and loss of primary forest in the southern
838 Bahian Atlantic forest of Brazil with radar imagery.” Conservation Biology 15(4): 867–
839 875.

840Sambuichi, R.H.R., Vidal, D.B., Piasentin, F.B., Jardim, J.G., Viana, T.G., Menezes, A. a.,
841 Mello, D.L.N., Ahnert, D. & Baligar, V.C. 2012. “Cabruca agroforests in southern Bahia,
842 Brazil: tree component, management practices and tree species conservation.”
843 Biodiversity and Conservation.

844Scanlan Lyons, C.M. 2010. The local politics of a global hotspot: Environmentalists, farmers,
845 quilombolas, and nativos in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest. Doctoral Dissertation. University of
846 Colorado, Department of Anthropology.

847Schulz, B. & Becker, B. 1994. “Indigenous knowledge in a “modern” sustainable agroforestry

848 system — a case study from eastern Brazil.” Agroforestry Systems, 25, 59-69.

849Tabarelli, M., Pinto, L.P., Silva, J.M.C., et al. 2005. “Challenges and opportunities for
850 biodiversity conservation in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest.” Conservation Biology, 19,
851 695-700.

852Veríssimo, A. 2006. Estratégia e mecanismos financeiros para florestas nativas do Brasil

853 [Strategies and mechanisms for financing native forests of Brazil]. Food and Agriculture
854 Organization. Retrieved May 2, 2012, from http://www.fao.org/forestry/12074-
855 027fef11c6831b6a2995ab35f025d075c.pdf.
 40

856Zanoni, M.M., AD.D.. Ferreira, L.de A. Miguel, D. Floriani, N. Canali, and C. Raynaut. 2011.
857 “Preservação da natureza e desenvolvimento rural: dilemas e estratégias dos agricultores
858 familiares em Areas de Proteção Ambiental.” [The preservation of nature and rural
859 development: dilemmas and strategies of family farmers in Areas of Environmental
860 Protection.” Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente 2: 39–55.

861Zuchiwschi, E., Fantini, A.C., Alves, A.C., Peroni, N. 2010. “Limitações ao uso de espécies
862 florestais nativas pode contribuir com a erosão do conhecimento ecológico tradicional e
863 local de agricultores familiares.” [Limitations on the use of native forest species can
864 contribute to erosion of traditional ecological and local knowledge among family
865 farmers]. Acta Botanica Brasilica, 24, 270-282.
 41

866ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

867We are very grateful to the representatives of Instituto Floresta Viva, Mecenas da Vida, the

868Parque Estadual Serra do Conduru, and to the small farmers of southern Bahia for their time,

869patience, and willingness to share their knowledge. Thank you to Mark Ashton for guidance,

870logistics, support, and comments, to our classmates in the Rapid Assessments in Forest

871Conservation course, and to the Carpenter-Sperry Research Fund for additional financial support.

872Thank you also to Colleen Scanlan Lyons, Ashley DuVal, and Flavia Stoike who generously

873provided us detailed and invaluably helpful comments on various drafts of this manuscript.

874
 42

875FIGURES
 43

876Figure 1. Location of the Parque Estadual Serra do Conduru (PESC) within southern Bahia.

877Source: Foundation SOS Mata Atlântica, 2001.

FONTE: Fundação SO.S. Mata Atlântica, 2001.

878
Fig ura 2. Domínios da Mata Atlântica, com destaque para as Florestas
Costeiras do Sul da Bahia e a localização do Parque Estadual da Serra do
Conduru.

O PESC possui uma área de aproximadamente 9.200 ha, representando um

grande fragmento deste Bioma, uma vez que na Bahia os fragmentos de Mata
 44

879
 45

880Figure 2. Location of the PESC in relation to Serra Grande, Itacaré, and the Rio de Contas
881(Moreau 2003).

882
 46

883Figures 3A and 3B. Maps of two farmer properties to illustrate spatial arrangement of home,

884agricultural, and forest resources. 3A illustrates the property of a farmer who is not working with

885an NGO; his farm is dominated by a cacao agroforestry system, or cabruca. 3B illustrates the

886property of a farmer who has been actively engaged with Instituto Floresta Viva as president of

887an agricultural cooperative. In both properties, the house is immediately surrounded by a

888homegarden and animals are kept nearby. Beyond this area are the agroforestry systems, tree

889groves, and small monoculture rubber stands in both properties. At the farthest edge of the

890properties are the forest reserves, in both cases generated from formerly cultivated secondary

891growth capoeira. Maps are only sketches of the areas visited, do not include all areas of the

892property, and are not to scale.

 47

893Figure 4. Cacao grafting method demonstrated on a non-NGO farmer property. Photo: A. Ball
 48

894Figure 5. Use areas on NGO-engaged and non-NGO smallholder properties. A: a simple

895agroforestry system of coconut intercropped with corn and manioc on a non-NGO farmer

896property. B: the vegetable garden, fish pond, and young agroforestry system of an NGO-engaged

897farmer. C: the understory of a cabruca forest on a non-NGO farmer’s property. D: a rubber grove

898on land of an NGO-engaged farmer. Photos: T. Varns and R. Kramer.

899
 49

900TABLES

901Table 1. Summary of Findings and Considerations: Effects of NGO Engagement on Land Use Systems

AGRICULTURAL NGO-ENGAGED NON-NGO-ENGAGED

SYSTEMS FARMERS FARMERS
Cabruca, diverse Cabruca, diverse
Agroforestry Systems
Complex Complex and Simple
Diverse, exotics and
Homegarden Diverse, exotics and natives
natives
Present but smaller and less
Vegetable Garden Large and diverse
diverse
Seedling Production Present but smaller and less
Large and diverse
Area diverse
Large, farmers interested in Large, farmers interested in
Secondary Forest
maintaining maintaining
Animal Arrangement Confined Freely roaming
902

903Table 2. Summary of Findings and Considerations: Farmer Experiences with NGOs

Benefits Cited Criticisms

 Increase in income  Perception by both farmers that

 Increase in pride, self-esteem, and
confidence
 Changes in farmer perception of
conservation from negative to positive
 Assistance with creation of farmer
associations that subsequently are able
to operate independently of NGOs
have worked with NGOs and those
who have not that NGOs create
dependency
 Tension between farmers
participating in NGO projects and those
who are not
 Changes in farmer perception of
past land use (swiddening) from
positive to negative

904

905
 50

906Table 3. Table of the 131 tree species recorded during the assessment. NGO farmers are those

907working directly with IFV or MdV, while non-NGO farmers are not. Personal observations

908include species cited by the authors and the instructor of the assessment course. Shaded boxes

909indicate species that the informant referred to "important" or "priority" to conservation, and that

910may also have economic potential.

911