This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS

Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 575–582

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha

The effects of land tenure on vulnerability to droughts in Northeastern Brazil

Fabiano Toni a,, Evandro Holanda Jr.b,1
a
Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Bloco C, Av. L3 Norte, Asa Norte, Brası́lia-DF, CEP: 70.904-970, Brazil
b
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Caprinos, Estrada Sobral/Groaı́ras, Km 04-Zona Rural-Sobral-CE, Caixa Postal 145, CEP 62010-970,
Brazil

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: This article presents evidence on two distinct farming systems—one that utilizes common property
Received 14 May 2007 pasturelands and another based on private pasturelands—in the Brazilian semi-arid zone. The research
Received in revised form is based on a survey carried out in the state of Bahia in 2002. A bivariate analysis was carried out to
28 July 2008
compare agricultural outputs and income generated in each system. Data suggest that there are no
Accepted 21 August 2008
significant differences between the two groups concerning income generation. However, farmers using
common pasturelands have more diversified systems and invest more on small-animal husbandry,
Keywords: which are adapted to the dry environment. As a consequence, families that use common pasturelands
Brazil have a higher consumption of animal protein. These families are thus not necessarily more vulnerable to
Semi-arid
droughts than those with private pasturelands. Formulating effective institutions to control access to
Common property resources
the commons is a strategy pursued by some communities, yet, their ecological sustainability is still
Caprinoculture
Vulnerability to climate change unknown.
& 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and livestock output and income generated in each system.

In the vast areas of the Brazilian semi-arid zone (see Fig. 1),
common property pasturelands, locally known as ‘‘fundos de
pasto’’ or ‘‘fechos de pasto’’ are widespread. Most are adjacent to
private plots, where smallholders live, grow annual crops, some
perennials, and breed small animals. The commons support
mainly native vegetation and comprise of bushes and native
grasses. Besides pastures, they are also important sources of
medicine, firewood, and fruits. Usually the term ‘‘fecho de pasto’’
refers to areas where bovine cattle is predominant, while in the
‘‘fundos de pasto’’, caprine and ovine cattle are predominant.
‘‘Fundos de pasto’’ systems are more common in drier areas than
the ‘‘fecho de pasto’’. Goats are particularly important in the
‘‘fundo de pasto’’ system, due to their resistance to droughts. In
some cases, farmers grow fodder in their private plots. However,
in most farms, the only source of forage for their animals is the
common pasturelands.
The main objective of this paper is to discuss the importance
and limits of the ‘‘fundo de pasto’’ system in a drought prone area.
Specifically, it will present a comparative study of two groups of
smallholders: those who use common property pasturelands and
those who rely solely on private lands. This comparison is
based on a bivariate analysis of variables related to agricultural
 Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 61 3368 5594; fax: +55 61 3368 5571.
E-mail address: ftoni@uol.com.br (F. Toni).
1
Tel.: +55 88 3677 7000; fax: +55 88 3677 7055.
Besides this quantitative analysis, the paper presents some
ethnographic data on the social organization and existing
institutions that emerged to keep natural pasturelands under a
common property regime in one of the communities where the
survey was carried out. The significant collective action efforts
that the residents engage into fight encroachments and their
demand for recognition of collective property rights from the state
were also studied.
The next section presents some background information on the
climatic conditions that impinge on the population of the
Brazilian semi-arid zone. In Section 3 we discuss the basic
elements of a framework to study the effects of land tenure on
the vulnerability of smallholders to droughts. Section 4 states the
main concepts used in this study, the research hypotheses, and
methodological procedures applied to achieve the proposed
objectives. In Section 5 we present the main findings. Finally,
the last section draws out the main conclusions and policy
recommendations.
2. Historical overview
The common property pasturelands in the Brazil semi-arid
came about during the 19th Century, as a consequence of the
abandonment of old cattle ranches along the São Francisco River
due to the decline of the sugar cane industry on the coast of the
State of Pernambuco. From the 16th century on, extensive cattle

0959-3780/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.08.004
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
576 F. Toni, E. Holanda Jr. / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 575–582
The Semi-arid
Northeastern
Brazil
Figure 1. Brazilian Northeastern, the semi-arid zones, and the research site.
ranching occupied the backlands of the Northeast along the river.
Cattle were shipped to the main markets in Olinda, Recife,
and other cities along the coast, in the sugar cane production
zones known as Zona da Mata. The beef market plunged as the
sugar industry declined, and many ranches were abandoned.
Later, those ranches were occupied by local rural workers, freed
slaves and migrants. Land was abundant in spite of the
lack of tenure security, but climatic conditions were harsh.
It resulted in farmers grabbing small individual land plots
to grow their crops and let their animals freely graze around
their properties. As the rural population grew, farmers settled
around large areas of pasturelands, trying to limit access to
outsiders. In many cases, those who occupy neighbouring plots
share some sort of kinship, and regulate access to the commons.
Besides providing pastures, the common areas are an important
source of fibres used in crafts and house-building, honey, fruits,
and medicines.
Recently, the State of Bahia started issuing individual land
titles to farmers. The most organized communities have also
been pressing the government for their right to obtain collective
titles for the common property areas. Property titles have become
very important because of the escalation of conflicts. A few
communities have problems with smallholders, who migrate to
the area and seek access to common property pasturelands;
others face threats from professional land grabbers, mining
companies, and ranchers, who claim to be the legitimate owners
of the lands.
Another important problem is the lack of official support for
economic activities developed in these areas. In general, farmers
need a legal title to their lands in order to have access to rural
credit. Farmers also lack scientific technical assistance for their
activities. In part, this neglect is a consequence of a misconceived
and prejudicial view of the ‘‘fundo de pasto’’ system by politicians,
government officials, and researchers, who often view this system
as backward and economically unviable.
Research site
3. Climate and vulnerability: background and a framework
of analysis
The research was conducted in the Northern most part of the
state of Bahia, one of the driest areas in the Brazilian Northeast
region. The Northeast is located just east of the Amazonian
rainforest, and has an area of 1.5 million km2. Approximately
15 million ‘‘Northeasterners’’ live in rural areas, which represent
32% of the regional population and 46% of the Brazilian
rural population. Besides this relatively high proportion of rural
population, it is worth noting that 50.6% of the local population
lives in municipalities that have less than 50,000 inhabitants,2 in
which there are few job opportunities and where most of the
population’s livelihoods depend directly or indirectly on agricul-
ture (Wanderley, 2002). The regional economic and social
indicators are below the national average, and there is a strong
intraregional unevenness. Most of the industrial activities,
services, and research, as well as higher education institutions
are concentrated in the metropolitan areas around the capital
cities of the states of Bahia, Pernambuco, and Ceará.
The rainfall in the region is typically concentrated between
February and May. Although some coastal zones, particularly in
the east, receive as much as 1600 mm of rainfall, some zones in
the backlands have an annual average of less than 400 mm. The
semi-arid zone (known as the Droughts Polygon) consists of
950,000 km2, which represents 58% of the area of the North-
eastern territory. The temporal and spatial variability of rainfall
are very high, as in other semi-arid zones of the world. The
interannual rainfall variation is usually around 740% from the
long-term annual average (Alves, 1997); however, in extreme
years deviation can be much higher, ranging from 200% to 100%
2
In the richest state of the federation—São Paulo—less than 20% of the
population lives in towns this size.
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Toni, E. Holanda Jr. / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 575–582
of the standard deviation (Nobre et al., 1992). The Intergovern-
mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) considers this region one
of the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change (Schneider
and Sarukhan, 2001; Parry et al, 1988, cited in Gasques et al.,
1992).
One of the causes of such variation is the Southern Oscillation
Phenomenon—the abnormal temperatures of the Southern
Tropical Pacific Ocean. The Oscillation—also known as El Niño
during its warm phase, and La Niña during its cold phase—has a
worldwide impact on the climate, and rainfall variation is one of
its main effects. During El Niño seasons, rainfall tends to decrease
in Northeast Brazil and to increase in the South. The effects of
La Niña are the opposite. However, climate is a complex
phenomenon, and the Southern Oscillation is not the only variable
that accounts for rainfall variation in the Brazilian semi-arid zone.
Alves (1997) studied the correlation between the Southern
Oscillation and agricultural output in the state of Ceará between
1947 and 1990 and concluded that beans and maize yields
(the main staples in the region, along with cassava) were 10–20%
above the historical mean during La Niña years and 30–50% below
average during El Niño years (Berlato and Fontana, 1997;
Grondona et al., 1997; Magrin et al., 1998; Baethgen and Romero,
2000).
In a scenario of global warming, subsistence agriculture in
semi-arid lands is at high risk. The global agricultural model
of Rosenzweig et al. (1993) identifies Northeastern Brazil as
suffering yield impacts that are among the most severe in the
world (see also Reilly et al., 1996; Canziani et al., 1998;
Rosenzweig and Hillel, 1998).
Severe climate conditions are not the only environmental
stressors that impinge on the local population. Other endogenous
and exogenous factors operating alongside climatic variations
increase vulnerability. Low rainfall, high temperatures, over-
grazing, deforestation, removal of natural vegetation cover, and
poor soil management all increase the risk of land degradation
and desertification.3 According to the IPCC, the regions most
vulnerable to desertification in Latin America are located in
Northeastern Brazil, in the zone along the Caribbean coasts of
Venezuela and Colombia, and in the semi-arid Chaco of Northern
Argentina (Schneider and Sarukhan, 2001).
4. Conceptual model
4.1. Defining key concepts
This research draws on Adger and Kelly’s (1999) definition of
vulnerability. It is defined as ‘‘the state of individuals, of groups, of
communities, defined in terms of their ability to cope with and
adapt to any external stress placed on their livelihoods and well-
being’’ (1999, p. 253). This definition acknowledges the impor-
tance of the degree of exposure to stressors, as well as the nature
and the intensity of external stressors. On the other hand, it makes
explicit that vulnerability is a social construct, inherently linked to
people’s capacity to act and to react. The vulnerability of
individuals and communities is therefore dependent on the
availability of resources and on their entitlements to utilize these
resources.
Amartya Sen first introduced the concept of entitlements in
his analysis of the effects of vulnerability on hunger and famine
3
Desertification is defined as land degradation in arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-
humid areas resulting from various factors, including climactic variations and
human activities (conclusion from Earth Summit of Rio de Janeiro in
1992—UNCED, 1992). Evaluation of desertification around the world is contro-
versial, for there is no unique measure of aridity.
577
(Sen, 1981). According to Dreze and Sen, a household’s
entitlements consist of the food that a household can obtain
through production, exchange, or extra-legal conventions—such
as reciprocal relations or kinship obligations (Drèze and Sen, 1989,
cited by Ribot, 1995). A household’s assets and endowments
include investments in productive activities, stores of food, cash,
and livestock, as well as claims on other households, patrons,
chiefs, and government, among others. Assets are normally
overused in moments of distress to obtain food, health care, and
other emergent contingences. As Swift (1989, p. 11) puts it, ‘‘assets
create a buffer between production, exchange, and consumption.’’
Three main strategies can be deployed to increase assets and
endowments. The first two relate particularly to endowments and
basically consist of developing social relations, although in very
distinctive ways: vertically or horizontally. Vertical social rela-
tions are socially hierarchical and asymmetrical in the sense that
they imply an unequal balance of power between the highest and
the lowest levels of the social hierarchy. In such relations,
peasants may exchange votes and political allegiance for public
and private goods and services, which is the basis of clientelism.
Although in the long run this strategy contributes to keeping the
less powerful in a vulnerable position, in the short term it can be
cost effective if peasants do not have to sell or trade part of their
assets for necessities—usually food and water.
Horizontal social relations are the social fabric of safety nets. In
times of hardship, those who have developed such relations may
rely on neighbours, family, and community members to cope with
the stressors that they face. Support may come in the form of
money and food loans, water, labour, shelter, transportation,
among others. The more community members make use of this
kind of support, the stronger are their safety nets. In other words,
they enhance their social capital by nurturing horizontal social
relations (Putnam, 1993).
A third way to increase assets and endowments is by means of
accumulation. This is a very important strategy for it does not
entail dependence on outsiders. However, it does require a
relatively efficient productive system that generates surplus.
Usually, small farmers make some profit with agriculture and
invest the surplus in livestock, particularly in cattle, due to its
liquidity and other comparative advantages, such as being a form
of capital that can be reproduced (Smith et al., 1995; Durning and
Brough, 1991). Cattle can easily be sold to cover expected and
unexpected financial needs. Using Swift’s words, one can argue
that cattle probably represent the most effective ‘‘buffer between
production, exchange, and consumption’’ (Swift, 1989, p. 11).
In Northeastern Brazil, political patronage and clientelism are
rampant and, in the long run, could be considered social stressors.
As the local population depends on governmental assistance to
make ends meet during periods of hardship, local political leaders
seize control of public resources and exchange them for votes and
political support. A historical perspective shows that the manip-
ulation of state policies and funds by power brokers has shaped
vulnerability and pulled the poor ‘‘down the rainfall gradient into
more and more marginalized lands’’ (Ribot, 1995, p. 121, quoting
Glantz, 1995). In this research, however, clientelism is considered
as an entitlement, following Drèze and Sen’s (1989) definition.
Fig. 2 represents the structure of vulnerability of small farmers
to climate variability in the Brazilian semi-arid zone. The exposure
units are households and communities who are exposed to
external environmental stressors—low precipitation, and sharp
rainfall variation, and desertification. Droughts are aggravated by
land degradation, which is at the same time a stressor and an
outcome of inadequate land management. Households and
communities deploy the three aforementioned strategies to cope
with the effects of the social and environmental stressors that
impinge on them. The outcomes of the interaction between the
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS

578 F. Toni, E. Holanda Jr. / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 575–582

Stressors Exposure Unity Outcomes

Households
Community
Environmental • Crop failure
Coping mechanisms
• Low/variable rainfall • Livestock
• Desertification • Patronage losses
• Use of assets • Out migration
• Collective action • Malnutrition
• Overexploitation of • Land
natural resources Degradation
(overgrazing, removal
of natural vegetation

Figure 2. Structure of vulnerability in the Brazilian semi-arid zone.

stressors are usually crop failure, livestock losses, out migration—
which can be also considered as a coping mechanism—
malnutrition, land degradation and further impoverishment of
the local population. The extent to which these outcomes affect
particular households or communities depends on the efficacy of
the coping mechanisms and the architecture of entitlements of
the exposed units.
Land tenure and property rights are particularly relevant
within this framework. Some authors claim that land titling
may significantly promote more sustainable forms of land use
(Wachter, 1992; World Bank, 1992). According to this perspective,
the security that is provided by well-defined property rights
allows for longer-term planning horizons because landowners
have the assurance that their decisions will be implemented, and
reap the returns from their investments. A recognized title to
property also promotes investment by providing collateral, and
thus enabling landholders to access credit and capital markets
(Alston et al., 1999). The lack of secure property rights, on the
other hand, implies that land owners will not be sure if they will
benefit from their investments and natural resource conservation
measures that they may eventually adopt (see Alchian and
Demsetz, 1973; Alessi, 1987; Alston et al., 1994; Beaumont and
Walker, 1994).
If users of open access resources lack title and secure private
ownership, rational economic actors may deplete these resources
(Hardin, 1968). However, this view does not consider that the title
and private ownership are not necessarily the only forms of
property rights that grant security to land holders. Communal
property rights, collective action, and local institutions may
provide even more security under certain circumstances.
Communal land use in poorer areas, contrary to what a significant
body of literature would predict, may reduce environmental
degradation rather than promote it (Ostrom, 1990).
4.2. Research questions and hypotheses
This research investigates the correlation between different
land tenure rights and the vulnerability of subsistence farmers to
droughts. A central hypothesis of the study is that farmers who
use the commons are significantly less vulnerable to droughts and
other social stressors than communities that operate within
individual and private land right regimes. This is due to their
breeding of larger cattle herds, particularly caprine and ovine.
Cattle is the main asset that subsistence farmers have to cope with
droughts, a hedge that can be used to buy food, to gain access
to water, to buy medicines, and to avoid migration, among
other benefits. Meanwhile, goats in general, and some breeds of
sheep are particularly well adapted to arid and semi-arid
environments.
Communal management of pasturelands, in comparison with
individual management, allows farmers to increase cattle herds.
This occurs mainly because common pasturelands give cattle the
mobility necessary for their survival during dry periods. Also,
smallholders can invest in animals rather than in fences,
increasing tradable (and edible) assets that can be easily
mobilized during harsh times.
In addition to this relationship between land property rights
and assets, the study seeks to inquire and discuss if and how
communities organize to control access to their pasturelands in
order to avoid its depletion. Nevertheless, assessing the ecological
sustainability of those systems is beyond the scope of this paper.
Rather, this study focuses on the social arrangements that
communities design to limit access.
4.3. Methods
To test our hypothesis, we used data collected by the Brazilian
Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA). The data was
obtained in 2002 by means of a random survey in 12 munici-
palities in Northeastern Bahia. EMBRAPA researchers interviewed
549 smallholder farmers and filled structured questionnaires. The
questionnaire had 678 questions, divided into six main categories:
(1) general information on the family (e.g. number of members,
age structure); (2) general information on the property (location,
size, titling status, land use); (3) land use (area of annual
and perennial crops, pasture, herd size); (4) capital assets
(tools, buildings, machinery); (5) agricultural income (sales and
consumption4 of crops, animals, milk, honey, crafts, etc.); and
(6) non-farm income (pensions, wage labour, remittances, and
welfare programs5).
The questionnaires were coded and fed into a SPSS database. In
the statistical analysis, the use of common pasturelands was the
independent variable. Due to the complexity and length of the
4
Consumption was converted into cash income based on the local market
prices at the time the data was collected.
5
Welfare programs in this region increased significantly after the data was
collected, so we must be cautious about inferences related to non-farm income.
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Toni, E. Holanda Jr. / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 575–582
Table 1
Typology of farmers
Group 1 Group 2
Farmers use common property Farmers do not use common
Pasturelands Property pasturelands
Focus on goats Focus on cattle (more intensive)
Larger area with subsistence crops Larger area with cash crops
Similar income
questionnaire, we selected a few dependent variables (see
Table 1)—most related to agriculture and livestock outputs and
income—and ran a bivariate analysis to compare the two groups
and test our main hypothesis. Some of those variables are in fact a
combination of several other single variables. For instance,
variable 25—in-farm consumption—comprises all agricultural
and livestock output retained in the farm during the year for
family consumption. Each item was valuated at local market
prices in 2002. The variable is the sum of those monetary values
and can be compared to cash income (variable 15). Combined,
those two variables (25 and 15) indicate the total family income
(variable 14).
We also collected qualitative data through interviews with
key-informants and a focus group meeting conducted in the
Municipality of Andorinha, State of Bahia.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Common property and farming systems
The statistical analysis shows that among the 25 selected
variables there are significant differences between the two groups
concerning: (A) total area of subsistence crops (variable 3
presented in Table 2); (B) total area of cash crops (variable 4);
(C) pastureland area (variable 5); (D) goat herds (variable 8); (E)
income generated by cattle (bovine) ranching (variable 16); and
(F) per capita consumption of meat.
On average, smallholders who use common pasturelands (from
now on, group 1) have 1.8 ha of subsistence crops; those who do
not use common pasturelands (group 2), have 1.2 ha. Goat herds
are significantly larger in group 1 with 8.9 animal units, against
6.6 animals in group 2. The size of private pastureland is larger in
farms in group 2 (10.1 ha) than in group 1 (3.9 ha). Accordingly,
the difference in the income generated by cattle ranching
significantly varies between the two groups (USD 279.2/year
against 146.4/year for group 1).
Although there are few differences, those two groups have
different farming systems. Group 1 is more focused on subsis-
tence, whereas group 2 tends to be more market-oriented.
Although farmers in group 2 do not have significantly larger
cattle herds, they earn more cash income from ranching.
Considering that they have larger pasture areas, it can be assumed
that they adopt a more intensive ranching system, i.e., they deploy
more capital and labour in this activity. Although they also tend to
focus on cash crops, rather than on subsistence crops, the net
income they get from that activity is not significantly higher than
that received by farmers in group 1 (see Table 1). This is so
because they have higher production costs.
These findings suggest that farmers who do not use common
property pasturelands tend to invest more capital and labour in
cattle and pasturelands, which is probably why they have
relatively smaller areas of subsistence crops. On the other hand,
those who use common pasturelands do not need to invest their
579
resources in implementing pastures, for their animals (typically
goats) rely on native grasses and bushes, usually inedible for
bovines to graze. At this point, the analysis shows that farmers in
group 2 may indeed adopt ‘‘more modern’’ farming systems, in
which a higher level of inputs also yields higher outputs. However,
this conclusion is still premature. If we look at the total net
income of the families in both groups (variable 14) there is no
significant difference whatsoever. The most important finding in
our bivariate analysis is related to the per capita annual meat
consumption (variable 26), which is significantly higher (at 95%
confidence) among farmers in group 1 than in group 2 (52.54 kg
compared to 36.86 kg/family member/year). This is particularly
important in a dry region such as the Brazilian Northeast, where
malnutrition is rampant. The explanation for this seems straight-
forward: as farmers who use common property pasturelands
invest more in small animals, they have larger herds and can
afford slaughtering an animal every now and then. A goat or a
sheep can be eaten in a few days by a family, shared with
neighbours, or salted. Cows, on the other hand, must be taken to
the market, for a family cannot possibly store or consume all the
beef that one animal yields, even when they possess a refrigerator.
Accordingly, investing in goats instead of cattle is an effective
strategy to decrease the vulnerability to droughts. With the same
capital, a farmer can purchase a larger number of goats than cows.
Therefore, during dry periods, the risks of loss is spread amongst a
larger herd. Moreover, goats are better adapted to dry conditions
and can graze on a larger number of species. In addition, cattle
ranching demands more pasture and fodder, diverting capital and
labour from other activities, particularly subsistence crops. Thus,
under a farming system that relies solely on private lands, farmers
tend to work harder to feed cattle, not for subsistence. Even
though extra income can be earned though cattle ranching, the
money is not used to purchase meat. This is probably due to the
aforementioned difficulties to conserve meat as well as to the
distance from farms to markets, which limits the purchasing of
fresh food. Also, due to inputs needed on bovine ranching and
cash crops, those farmers may need to spend their extra cash on
food staples that are usually grown in-farm by subsistence
farmers.
To sum up, families using common pasturelands are less
vulnerable to droughts because they raise animals that are
adapted to very dry conditions, satisfy their subsistence needs,
and provide nutritional requirements (i.e. protein) as well as
engage on production activities that are less costly and easy to
maintain.
5.2. Social organization and local institutions
There is a wide variation amongst rural communities with
respect to farming systems, income, social organization, and local
rules governing the access and use of common pasturelands. We
conducted an in-depth analysis of a relatively well-organized
community—the Surará—which uses common pasturelands. Our
intention is not to provide a representative sample of rural
communities, but rather to present some of the challenges that
commoners face, as well as the way they respond to those
challenges.
The Surará community is located in the municipality of
Andorinha, in the state of Bahia. It is comprised of 63 families,
who own private plots and share around 600 ha of native
pasturelands.6 The area is very dry and the main economic
6
These pastures are complex savanna-like landscapes, composed of native
grasses and bushes, among other species, which provide fodder for bovine, ovine,
and particularly caprine cattle.
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS

580 F. Toni, E. Holanda Jr. / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 575–582

Table 2
Means and standard deviation for selected variables

Variable Common pasturelands t-test

Yes No

Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation

1. Number of farms 441 – 108 – –

2. Total area (ha) 44.16 71.09 45.19 63.01 ns
3. Subsistence crops area (ha) 1.83 2.66 1.20 2.65 po0.05
4. Commercial crops area(ha) 1.06 2.32 1.68 5.24 po0.10
5. Private Pastureland area (ha) 3.92 7.54 10.13 17.48 po0.05
6. Fodder area (ha) 0.37 1.53 0.55 2.20 ns
7. Natural vegetation (caatinga) area (ha) 27.34 49.04 23.94 40.62 ns
8. Caprines—Animal Unit 8.91 9.91 6.59 10.79 po0.05
9. Ovines—Animal Unit 5.47 7.46 5.18 9.60 ns
10. Bovines—Animal Unit 4.98 10.25 6.31 14.99 ns
11. Family size 5.45 2.79 5.29 3.01 ns
12. Number of migrants 1.39 2.33 1.63 2.89 ns
13. Investment mach./equipment (USD) 677.02 1503.37 653.64 1608.21 ns
14. Total income (USD/yr) 1673.21 1783.49 775.43 2945.86 ns
15. Cash income (USD/yr) 1236.70 1655.13 719.62 2872.24 ns
16. Income bovines (USD/yr) 146.28 498.88 216.90 879.50 po 0.05
17. Income caprines (USD/yr) 212.77 521.77 226.85 343.29 ns
18. Income ovines (USD/yr) 124.70 573.64 249.41 430.87 ns
19. Agricultural income (USD/yr) 222.64 650.37 282.77 1535.03 ns
20. Other animals (USD/yr) 113.32 678.50 295.00 119.52 ns
21. Pensions (USD/yr) 461.65 764.35 332.33 832.77 ns
22. Remittances (USD/yr) 7.56 42.27 18.38 25.48 ns
23. Wage labor (USD/yr) 50.50 186.30 81.00 164.57 ns
24. Other (USD/yr) 12.83 95.22 41.40 73.26 ns
25. In farm consumption (USD/yr) 436.52 372.56 161.98 436.04 ns
26. Meat consumption (kg/family member/yr) 52.54 63.80 36.86 43.12 po 0.05

ns ¼ non significant.

activity is animal husbandry. Farmers grow some maize and
beans, but only a little is marketed. Also, they have a tradition of
leather craftwork. Men and women tan goat skins, design, cut and
sew traditional hats, purses and horse saddles, which are sold in
the street markets in the towns nearby, or to small dealers who
sell the crafts to larger markets.
Farmers are organized in association, which was created in
1986 due to land conflicts. In the 1980s, conflicts escalated
because the federal government offered rural credit with generous
subsidies. However, members of the urban elite started claiming
public lands to gain access to rural credit. Eventually, the loans
were diverted to non-agricultural activities. Also, many commu-
nities, like Surará, already had problems with neighbouring
ranchers who fought against the community to possess the
common areas. The creation of the local association was a
response to those threats, and its main task was to secure land
tenure for the smallholders.
Most families have some sort of kinship, and their ancestors
settled in the area a long time ago—the elderly claim that their
grandfathers were born in this area—so they probably settled
before the mid-19th century. Latecomers are relatives who came
from other municipalities in the region, where they could not
work on their own land. Surprisingly, the community is growing,
not only because of marriage, but also because many are coming
back after loosing their jobs in urban areas. This poses a serious
challenge to the community, for they have to share the common
pasturelands with an increasing number of families. Furthermore,
in many cases, when a family does not have enough land to divide
among the sons, the community gives them part of the common
area to be used as a private plot. In spite of the economic losses
caused by the reduction of the commons, farmers usually do not
have problems dividing the communal lands with members of the
community. On the other hand, strangers are not welcome and
have meager chances of getting land in the community.
During the fieldwork, the research team witnessed an inter-
esting example of how the community deals with such claims.
The heir to a former resident of the area came to talk to the
president of the Association. She had migrated to São Paulo city
long ago, and her mother kept farming the area until death, some
30 years ago. Since then, the property was left abandoned, and
when the State Government came to measure the lands and issue
titles, the members of the community said that the abandoned
plot should be included in the common area (which has not been
titled). The woman decided to visit the area and claimed
ownership of her mother’s land. As she was not interested in
moving back, the community rejected her claims on the grounds
that the property had been left abandoned, and did not serve any
productive purpose except as common pastureland, and so it
should remain. According to community leaders, had she showed
interest in moving back to farm the land, they would have granted
her the land; however, they could not accept the idea of having
someone owning land just for speculative purposes.
Although the community controls formal access to the
common lands, pressure has been increasing. The slow but steady
growth of the population has been causing a reduction of the
common pasturelands. Goat herds have been steadily declining,
according to community members. Besides grazing, the common
area is very important for the farmers as a source of Angico
(Anadenanthera macrocarpa) barks used in tanning the leather. The
farmers show some concern about the sustainability of bark
harvesting. According to them, the high demand for bark has
significantly affected this valuable resource, particularly because
some members of the community over-harvested the bark,
eventually killing the trees. Recently, outsiders came to the region
buying the bark for larger-scale tanning companies, which caused
further decline in the tree population. All these changes will likely
contribute to an increase in the vulnerability of families using
common pasturelands in the future.
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Toni, E. Holanda Jr. / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 575–582
6. Conclusions
The results contradict the claims that the ‘‘fundo de pasto’’ is a
backward farming system. Although private farming systems tend
to be more technology intensive, they do not necessarily provide
higher income to smallholders because of higher production costs.
Moreover, the ‘‘fundo the pasto’’ system has a clear advantage in
terms of food security. Families within this system have a higher
animal protein intake. Most of this protein comes from their own
animals, which are relatively resistant to droughts. Moreover,
because these farmers are less dependent on both market forces
and climate variation, they are less vulnerable to droughts. Our
data is limited, however, for it does not account for processed
food—another potential source of protein—that farmers may be
purchasing in local markets. Further interdisciplinary research is
needed on food production and consumption, as well as on
impacts of market integration on local culture, including feeding
habits.
Although communities develop local institutions to control
access to the commons, there are still pressures from inside and
outside, even to the well-organized groups. Internal pressure
relates to the increasing population that needs to share a fixed-
size grazing area. Outside pressures come from ranchers, miners,
and land-grabbers who claim ownership of common lands. Also,
the development of new markets for forest products tempted
farmers to overexploit some of their natural resources. All these
will contribute to an increase in vulnerability of these commu-
nities to droughts in the future.
However, it is important to stress that there is no reliable data
on the ecological sustainability of the ‘‘fundo de pasto’’ system.
This is, in part, a consequence of the predominate view that the
system is anachronic and should be substituted by private
property. Little research effort has been made to understand the
system and its environmental impacts. In many cases, goats could
be overgrazing the native vegetation and causing serious
degradation. It is therefore crucial to develop further studies on
the feeding habits of goats, as well as on the regrowth of the
natural vegetation, in order to develop sustainable systems of
pasture management. This can contribute not only to increased
livestock outputs, but also to the conservation of the semi-arid
landscape. Accordingly, there are several non-timber forest
products—fibers, fruits, barks, roots—that can be harvested from
the caatinga to increase farm income. Scientific input is still
needed in order to develop sound forest resources management
systems in those areas, especially to prepare them for more severe
droughts expected in the near future.
Developing appropriate land and forest management systems
is crucial for the population to cope with droughts. However, the
greatest challenge confronting them is building the required social
or political institutions that secure access to natural resources.
The data presented here sheds some light on the relationship
between property rights and vulnerability to droughts. This data,
however, is limited to a specific context, so it cannot assume that
common property regimes are better suited to all ecological and
cultural contexts. Within the Brazilian semi-arid zone there are
sharp variations in climate as well as in farming systems and
feeding habits. Such variation calls for further case studies as well
as comparative research.
Nevertheless, this data does suggest that common pasture-
lands are relevant for food security in this region, so policy
makers and local social organizations should consider existing
experiences of collective land management elsewhere in Brazil,
such as the Extractivist Reserves and Agroforestry Land Reform
Settlements in Amazonia. Similar arrangements in the semi-arid
zone could provide tenure security to poor farmers and diminish
their vulnerability to droughts.
581
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the David and Lucille Packard
Foundation, through the global change SysTem for Analysis,
Research and Training—START; by the Brazilian Agricultural
Research Corporation (EMBRAPA) and by the Brazilian National
Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).
References
Adger, N., Kelly, P.M., 1999. Social vulnerability to climate change and the
architecture of entitlements. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change 4, 245–266.
Alchian, A., Demsetz, H., 1973. The property rights paradigm. Journal of Economic
History 33, 16–27.
Alessi, L. De, 1987. Property rights and privatization. In: Stephen, H.H. (Ed.),
Prospects for Privatization: Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science,
vol. 26 (3).
Alston, L.J., Libecap, G., Schneider, R., 1994. An analysis of property rights, land
rents, and agricultural investment on two frontiers in Brazil, unpublished
paper.
Alston, L.J., Libecap, G.D., Mueller, B., 1999. Titles, Conflict, and Land Use: The
Development of Property Rights and Land Reform on the Brazilian Amazon
Frontier. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Alves, J.M.B., 1997. Aspectos Climatológicos do Nordeste Brasileiro com Ênfase na
Região Semi-Árida: Principais causas da Variedade Pluviométrica Interanual.
In: First Brazilian Rainwater Catchment Systems Conference. Proceedings.
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Petrolina.
Baethgen, W.E., Romero, R., 2000. Sea surface temperature in the El Niño region
and crop yield in Uruguay. In: Comisión Nacional sobre el Cambio Global
(CNCG). Climate Variability and Agriculture in Argentina and Uruguay:
Assessment of ENSO Effects and Perspectives for the Use of Climate Forecast:
Final Report to the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research.
Comisión Nacional sobre el Cambio Global, Montevideo, Uruguay.
Beaumont, P.M., Walker, R., 1994. Land degradation and property regimes.
Ecological Economics 18, 55–66.
Berlato, M.A., Fontana, D.C., 1997. El Niño Oscilac-ao Sul e a agricultura da regiao sul
do Brasil. In: Efectos de El Niño sobre la Variabilidad Climática, Agricultura y
Recursos Hı́dricos en el Sudeste de Sudamérica (Impacts and Potential
Applications of Climate Predictions in Southeastern South America), Workshop
and Conference on the 1997–98 El Niño, 10–12 December 1997, Montevideo,
Uruguay.
Canziani, O.F., Dı́az, S., Calvo, E., Campos, M., Carcavallo, R., Cerri, C.C., Gay-Garcı́a,
C., Mata, L.J., Saizar, A., Aceituno, P., Andressen, R., Barros, V., Cabido, M.,
Fuenzalida-Ponce, H., Funes, G., Galvão, C., Moreno, A.R., Vargas, W.M.,
Viglizao, E.F., de Zuvirı́a, M., 1998. In: Watson, R.T., Zinyowera, M.C., Moss,
R.H. (Eds.), The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment of
Vulnerability. Special Report of IPCC Working Group II Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; New
York, NY, USA, pp. 187–230.
Drèze, J., Sen, A., 1989. Hunger and Public Action. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Durning, A., Brough, H., 1991. Taking Stock: Animal Farming and the Environment.
Worldwatch Paper 103. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC.
Gasques, J.G., Coelho, C.H.M., Almeida, M.B., Soares, F.A., Silva, L.A.C., Nogueira, M.J.,
Oliveira, J.G.B., Lins, R.C., 1992. A case-study—overall scenery of the Brazilian
Northeast. In: International Conference on Impacts of Climatic Variations and
Sustainable Development in Semi-Arid Regions, Proceeedings. Governo do
Estado do Ceará, Fortaleza.
Grondona, M.O., Magrin, G.O., Travasso, M.I., Moschini, R.C., Rodrı́guez, G.R.,
Messina, C., Boullón, D.R., Podestá, G., Jones, J.W., 1997. Impacto del fenómeno
El Niño sobre la producción de trigo y maı́z en la región Pampeana Argentina.
In: Berry, G.J. (Ed.), Efectos de El Niño sobre la Variabilidad Climática,
Agricultura y Recursos Hı́dricos en el Sudeste de Sudamérica. Workshop and
Conference on the 1997–98 El Niño, 10–12 December 1997, Montevideo,
Uruguay, pp. 13–18.
Hardin, G., 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243–1248.
Magrin, G.O., Grondona, M.O., Travasso, M.I., Boullón, D.R., Rodriguez, C.D.,
Messina, C.D., 1998. Impacto del Fenómeno ‘‘El Niño’’ sobre la Producción de
Cultivos en la Región Pampeana. INTA-Boletı́n de divulgación.
Nobre, C.A., Massambini, O., Liu, W.T., 1992. Climatic variability in the semi-arid
region of Brazil and drought monitoring from satellite. In: International
Conference on Impacts of Climatic Variations and Sustainable Development in
Semi-Arid Regions, Proceeedings. Governo do Estado do Ceará, Fortaleza.
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for
Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Parry, M.L., Carter, T.R., Konjin, N.T., 1988. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,
876pp.
Putnam, R., 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Reilly, J., Baethgen, W., Chege, F.E., van de Geijn, S.C., Erda, L., Iglesias, A., Kenny, G.,
Patterson, D., Rogasik, J., Rotter, R., Rosenzweig, C., Sombroek, W., Westbrook, J.,
Bachelet, D., Brklacich, M., Dammgen, U., Howden, M., Joyce, R.J.V., Lingren,
 Author's personal copy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
582 F. Toni, E. Holanda Jr. / Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 575–582
P.D., Schimmelpfennig, D., Singh, U., Sirotenko, O., Wheaton, E., 1996.
Agriculture in a changing climate: impacts and adaptation. In: Watson, R.T.,
Zinyowera, M.C., Moss, R.H. (Eds.), Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations
and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. Contribution
of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; New
York, NY, USA, pp. 427–467.
Ribot, J., 1995. The causal structure of vulnerability: its application to climate
impact analysis. Geojournal 35 (2), 119–122.
Rosenzweig, C., Hillel, D., 1998. Climate Change and the Global Harvest: Potential
Impacts of the Greenhouse Effect on Agriculture. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, UK.
Rosenzweig, C., Parry, M.L., Fischer, G., Frohberg, K., 1993. Climate Change and
World Food Supply. Research Report no. 3, Environmental Change Unit. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, UK.
Schneider, S., Sarukhan, J., 2001. Overview of impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability
to climate change. In: Mc Carty, J.J., Canziani, O.F., Leary, N.A., Dokken, D.J.,
White, K.S. (Eds.), Impacts, Adpatation and Vulnerability. Report of Working
Group 2, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 13–16 February 2002.
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)/United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), Geneva.
Sen, A., 1981. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Smith, N., Serrão, E.A., Alvim, P.T., Falesi, I., 1995. Amazonia: Resiliency and
Dynamism of the Land and its People. United Nations Press, New York.
Swift, J., 1989. Why are Rural People Vulnerable to Famine? IDS Bulletin 20 (2),
8–15.
Wachter, D., 1992. Farmland Degradation in Developing Countries: The Role of
Property Rights and an Assessment of Land Titling as a Policy Intervention.
Land Tenure Center Paper 145. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.
Wanderley, M.N.D., 2002. Territorialidade e Ruralidade no Nordeste: Por um Pacto
Social pelo Desenvolvimento Rural. In: Sabourin, E., Teixeira, O.A. (Eds.),
Planejamento e Desenvolvimento dos Territórios Rurais: Conceitos, Contro-
vérsias e Experiências. EMBRAPA, CIRAD, UFPB, Campina Grande.
World Bank, 1992. Brazil: An Analysis of Environmental Problems in the Amazon.
World Bank, Washington, DC.