Institutional requirements and food security
“Best bet” Land-use Systems
Country reports
Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn in Brazil
Adoption Potential Of Alternative Land Use Systems
Unique id: IDAY4EXB
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The last three columns of Table 13 address the other issues that condition the adoptability of LUS, either by affecting profitability or by exposing farmers to increased production or price risks, perhaps threatening their livelihoods or food security. Substantial institutional obstacles confront farmers attempting to establish and operate some systems, their degree and type varying widely by system. Imperfections in the labour market have already been discussed and are considered a constraint to adoption in all intensified systems, particularly the improved fallow system. Beyond this, though, practically all intensified systems include reliance on other markets, themselves plagued by imperfections, including the capital market and markets for specific inputs and outputs. The exception is precisely the system most dependent on labour—improved fallows. In particular, high start-up costs (mostly large capital investments for establishment); multi-year delays in achieving positive cash flow and substantial maintenance requirements may place a system out of reach for many smallholders who do not have access to medium- or long-term credit.
Non-market institutional issues
can also impede or facilitate the adoption of intensified systems. The
regulatory environment, for instance, may or may not be friendly, and the
knowledge needed to apply the necessary new technology may represent either a
small step beyond farmers’ existing practices or a major investment in new
thinking and skills. Although all the intensified LUS were deemed to face some
non-market institutional obstacles, the number and severity of those faced by
managed forestry— an otherwise attractive system in terms of returns to labour
and labour requirements—were remarkable.
Sustainable extraction from forests calls for expertise on forest
species and felling techniques not readily available in the project areas. It
also demands a high level of social cooperation in order to achieve economies
of scale in production, establish processing enterprises and protect the system
against unsustainable exploitation, either within the group or by outsiders.
Practitioners must also navigate the regulations that currently serve to limit
or monitor extraction from forest reserves. The improved pasture/cattle systems
also calls for knowledge of new techniques and for seeds of new legume species,
but these innovations can be adopted piecemeal, with an initial focus on
aspects more similar to traditional pasture/cattle practices. The non-intensified
counterpart of managed forestry, low-level forest extraction, a system long
practised in some areas, has the fewest institutional obstacles.
The ability to overcome many of these institutional obstacles is presumably the most restricted for precisely those farmers who are most at risk of food insecurity and who have the fewest resources in terms of time, money and knowledge. Before they adopt a new system, these households especially may need to take stock of any risks implied by its reliance on markets to meet food needs.