Profitability
“Best bet” Land-use Systems
Country reports
Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn in Brazil
Adoption Potential Of Alternative Land Use Systems
Unique id: IDA5ZBXB
Source file: D:\Projects\ASB\ASB Country and Thematic
reports\Brazil country report\ASB Brazil Summary Report.xml
Authors: S. Vosti, C. L.
Carpentier, J. Witcover, . Carvalho dos Santos, E. Muñoz Braz, J.
Ferreira Valentim, S. J. de Magalhães de Oliveira, C. Palm, F. de Souza
Moreira, A. Cattaneo, A. Gillison, A. Mansur Mendes, V. Rodrigues, T. C. de
Araújo Gomes, M. V. Neves d’Oliveira, E. do Amaral, S. Fujisaka, C. Castilla,
T. Tomich, D. Bignell, D. Gonçalves Cordeiro, A. Hermes Vieira, R.S. Correira da
Costa, M. Faminow, M. Locatelli, M. Swift, S. Weise, M. van Noordwijk, N.
Sampaio, I. L. Franke, H. J. Borges de Araujo, L. M. Rossi, E. Barros, B.
Feigl, S.P. Huang, J. Cares, C. Pinho de Sá, . Carneiro, P. Woomer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In assessing the relative profitability of systems, farmers
measure financial returns to both land and labour. In relatively labour-scarce
environments (such as the one studied here), returns to labour would be expected
to outweigh returns to land in farmers’ decisions to adopt. Figure 11 compares
the two profitability measures. All
of the systems shown in the figure yield higher returns to labour than forests
(traditionally exploited through the extraction of Brazil nuts and minimal
logging); this is almost certainly the primary factor behind farmers’ decisions
to convert forest into agricultural land.[1]Among
alternative LUS, a broad array of returns to land and labour exist. Systems at or below the average rural daily
wage for unskilled labour, approximately R$ 7 (US$1 = ± R$ 1), are
unlikely to be attractive to farmers, although imperfections in the labour
market, the seasonality of labour demand and heterogeneity of labour within the
household make this a less than firm rule.[2] Indeed, the annual crop/fallow shifting
cultivation system, which is no longer practised, yields slightly lower returns
than working for wages, while the traditional pasture/cattle system, which is
the most prevalent in the study area, yields slightly higher returns than wage
labour. Of the two coffee-based systems, the one with the higher return to
labour (coffee/bandarra) generates about twice the wage rate. Improved
pasture/cattle and managed forestry systems bring in returns to labour nearly
three times higher than those of the traditional pasture/cattle system. With
the exception of disturbed forest and the non-existent annual crop/fallow
systems, all systems generate positive returns to land. Moreover, all
intensified systems appear more financially attractive than their
less-intensive counterparts.
Figure 11. Returns to labour and
labour requirements of different LUS
|
|
Labour requirement (person-days)
|
|
Notes:
1.
All prices in R$, December 1996; US$ 1 = R$1.04.
2.
Evaluations of AC and RO systems used prices and parameters from Pedro Peixoto
(Acre) and Theobroma (Rondônia) respectively.
3.
Returns do not take into account known difficulties in marketing.
4.
The horizontal ‘wage’ line represents the daily wage for hired labour in the
area; the vertical ‘RO’ and ‘AC’ lines represent
person-days per cleared area for a typical
farm household.
5.
Labour requirements (person-days/ha/yr) are based on total requirements over
the life of the LUS.
Source: ASB field data, 1994-97
