Do political changes aimed at reducing Amazoniandeforestation contribute to ecological intensification?

AbstractExtensive livestock farming was the driver of agricultural colonization and territorialstructuring in the Amazon. Since 2008, Amazonian agriculture has been facedwith radicalchanges in Brazilian policies concerning agricultural land use and the preservation offorest areas. The very viability of livestock systems is threatened and there is thus anurgent need for feasible alternatives to enable the development of sustainableagriculture. Some alternatives are currently being tested by public extension servicesand private operators. The question is, can these alternatives really be considered asecological intensification? Defined as ecologically friendly agricultural development, thisnew trend of intensification aims to reconcile cattle ranching and the protection ofAmazon forest ecosystems. Our analysis, based on three contrastedmunicipalities in ParaState, focuses on the points of view of different stakeholders in the livestock sector.Results show the dominance of classical intensification among the alternatives envisaged,but it is an option that small family farmers cannot easily afford. Alternatives based onland sharing, which promotes agricultural production and environmental preservationon the same areas, are less well known and will require more coordination amonglocal actors.

Key words: Brazil; Amazonia; ecological intensification; livestock raising; family farming;public policy.

Subjects: economy and rural development; forestry; territory, land use, agricultural andfood production policy.

RésuméL'évolution des politiques publiques pour réduire la déforestation en Amazoniecontribue-t-elle à l'intensification écologique ?

L’elevage extensif a ete un moteur dans l’avancee des fronts agricoles et la construction desterritoires en Amazonie bresilienne. Depuis 2008, l’agriculture amazonienne estconfrontee a des changements radicaux de la politique bresilienne concernant l’usagedes terres agricoles et la preservation des zones forestieres. La viabilite des systemesd’elevage est aujourd’hui menacee ; il est urgent de trouver et de mettre en œuvre dessolutions viables, techniques et sociales, pour permettre le developpement durable del’agriculture en Amazonie. Une serie d’alternatives sont testees par les services publics,prives et des organisations non gouvernementales (bresiliennes et internationales) afind’amorcer une trajectoire d’intensification tout en preservant la foret. Notre question est :les alternatives envisagees contribuent-elles a un mouvement d’intensification ecolo-gique ? Defini comme developpement agricole respectueux de l’environnement, cemouvement est considere comme un des facteurs d’une coexistence entre elevage et foret.Sur la base d’une etude realisee dans trois communes contrastees de l’Etat du Para,l’analyse porte sur la connaissance qu’ont les acteurs impliques dans le secteur de l’elevagesur ces alternatives. Nous analysons egalement en quoi les alternatives citees par lesacteurs sont liees a l’intensification ecologique. Les resultats montrent qu’il s’agit la plupart

Nathalie Cialdella1,6

Soraya Carvalho2

Vania Vaz3

Tienne Barbosa4

Marcelo Thâles5

Moises Mourão6

Ren�e Poccard-Chapuis6,7

Jean-Francois Tourrand8

1 CIRADUMR Innovation34398 MontpellierFrance<nathalie.cialdella@cirad.fr>2 UFPA- NCADRUniversidade Federal do Par�a - UFPAN�ucleo de Ciências Agr�arias eDesenvolvimento RuralRua Augusto Corrêa, N8 01Campus Universit�ario do Guam�a66075-110 Bel�emPar�aBrasil<soraya@ufpa.br>3 UNB - CDSUNB - Centro de desenvolvimentosustentavelCampus Darcy RibeiroAsa NorteBrasília - DF, 70910-900Brasil<vaniavaz22@hotmail.com>

4 Agroparistech16, rue Claude Bernard75005 ParisFrance<tiennejo@yahoo.com.br>5 Museo Goeldi62 Av. Gov. Magalhães Barata328 - São Br�asPA, 66060-281Brasil<mcthales@museu-goeldi.br>6 EmbrapaEmbrapa Amazônia Oriental. Trav.Dr. En�eas Pinheiro, s/n°Caixa postal 48, CEP 66095-100Bel�em, PABrasil

doi: 10.1684/agr.2015.0761

Reprints: N. CialdellaTo cite this article: Cialdella N, Carvalho S, Vaz V, Barbosa T, ThâlesM,MourãoM, Poccard-ChapuisR, Tourrand JF, 2015. Do political changes aimed at reducing Amazonian deforestation contributeto ecological intensification? Cah Agric 24: 246-54. doi : 10.1684/agr.2015.0761

246 Cah Agric, vol. 24, n8 4, juillet-aout 2015

Original study

D evelopment in the BrazilianAmazon is emblematic of theneed to find a compromise

between reaching food productiongoals and nature conservation world-wide. Population projections for thecoming decades show that we willhave to produce more food – andshare it better – while reducingnegative impacts on the environmentand ensuring the provision of envir-onmental services (Hubert et al.,2010). The main challenge is thustwofold: intensification and increasedsustainability. The scientific commu-nity calls this trend ‘‘ecological inten-sification’’, but this concept varieswidely depending on the authorsand countries (Dore et al., 2011).The Amazon is a biodiversity ‘‘hotspot’’ and its conservation is consid-ered to be crucial for carbon storageand climate regulation (Sheil andMurdiyarso, 2009; Soares-Filho et al.,2010). But at the same time, Brazil isthe world’s largest exporter of beefand nearly one third of the Brazilianherd, around 70 million cattle, islocated in the Amazon (IBGE, 2010).Mining, timber exploration and cattleranching have been the three drivers ofcolonization of the Brazilian Amazon(Sayago et al., 2004). As cattle ranchingrelies on pasture management, whichis based on slash and burn practices,it is also one of the main drivers ofdeforestation (Poccard-Chapuis et al.,2005). In addition, livestock plays a keyrole in the viability of Amazonianfamily farms (Tourrand et al., 2002;Carvalho, 2011).Since 2008, the federal government hastried to stop deforestation by imple-menting a command and control

policy. All the stakeholders of thelivestock sector, including cattle ranch-ing and the beef supply chain, recog-nize the need to find alternatives toslash and burn. The intensification oflivestock farming is widely argued tobe the best alternative. Twenty yearsago, supported by research conductedon a number of fazendas (large scaleranches), a necessary technologicaladvance took place (Veiga et al.,2004) focused on integrated crop-livestock systems. However, slowingdown deforestation is only one aspectof conserving Amazonian ecosystems(Nepstad et al., 2014) and possibleways of intensifying livestock produc-tion have been the subject of fewstudies to date. This paper focuses onindividual and collective technicaland organizational alternatives aimedat ecological intensification or thatat least do not require deforestation.It discusses conditions and waysto achieve ecological intensification(Griffon, 2013).In the following section, we review thescientific opinions around the conceptof ecological intensification and pre-sent our interdisciplinarymethodologyand our case study. Next, we describethe diverse alternatives mentioned bythe actors asmethods enablingproduc-tion without deforestation. We analyzehow these alternatives will inevitablylead to adjustments and deep reconfi-gurations of current livestock prod-uction systems, both technically andorganizationally.Wealso examinehowthese alternatives are – and are not –specific to family farming. In the lastsection, we discuss these alternativesfrom both social and technical pointsof view while keeping ecological

intensification and family farmingissues in mind.

What does ecologicalintensification meanfor the Amazon?

Theoretical framework forecological intensificationReducing greenhouse gas emissions inthe context of climate change requiresthedesign andpromotionof alternativepractices, especially in agriculture.Ecological intensification is seen as adesirable way to transform agriculture.The term ‘‘ecological intensification’’emerged in public and scientificdebates following the failure of thegreen revolution with respect to eco-logical and social concerns (Bonny,2011). The term ‘‘ecological intensifica-tion’’ covers a range of agronomicalapproaches, from increasing cropproductivity with limited negativeshort-term environmental impacts,to increasing the use of ecologicalprocesses for agricultural production(Dore et al., 2011). Nevertheless, thewhole range of approaches refers toonly two paradigms: ‘‘weak ecologi-cal modernization’’, which does notrequire a radical shift in the mostwidespread agricultural practices(conventional practices) and ‘‘strongecological modernization’’ whichrequires considering agriculture notonly as a food provider, but alsoas an ecosystem services provider(Duru et al., 2014). Consequently,a wide range of practices and

du temps de methodes conventionnelles d’intensification, difficiles a atteindre pour lespetits producteurs familiaux, et qui separent les zones de production intensive des zones aproteger. Les alternatives basees sur l’integration de la production agricole et de laprotection de l’environnement sur les memes espaces sont moins connues et demandentune coordination plus grande entre les acteurs locaux.

Mots cles : Bresil ; Amazonie ; intensification ecologique ; elevage ; agriculture familiale ;politique publique.

Themes : economie et developpement rural ; forets ; territoire, foncier, politique agricoleet alimentaire.

<moises.mourao@embrapa.br><rene.poccard-chapuis@cirad.fr>7 CIRADUMR Selmet34398 MontpellierFrance8 Cirad - UR GreenAvenue Agropolis,34398 Montpellier Cedex 5France<jean-francois.tourrand@cirad.fr>

247Cah Agric, vol. 24, n8 4, juillet-aout 2015

agricultural models can claim to bepart of ecological intensification.They differ ‘‘in the way they considerthe impact of the surroundingnatural environment on agriculture,the impact of agriculture on thesurrounding natural environment,and the way natural elements areembedded in agricultural systems’’(Tittonnel, 2014). Agro-ecologymaybethe agricultural model that is the mostembedded in nature, as it includeshuman beings (Altieri, 2002). In Brazil,where rural territories have been basedon a strong duality and where conflictsbetween large and small scale farmersare common, agro-ecology has beena model that supports the autonomyof small family farmers (Wezel et al.,2009). Thus, in theory, land sharingcorresponds better to a model ofsustainable family farming whereas

land sparing corresponds better tolarge scale entrepreneurial farms,fazendas (Grau et al., 2013). Facedwith these different definitions, wechose to not restrict ourselves to oneor the other, but rather to base ourstudy on existing alternatives.First, we checked local actors’ percep-tions of the need to shift from adominant model of ranching, andmining of timber wood, to an inten-sive model that preserves the forestecosystem. Second, we analyzed towhat extent known and implementedalternatives are linked to ecologicalintensification and how they apply tofamily farms versus fazendas.

Study siteAltamira, Redencao and Paragominasare three contrasted municipalities

on the agricultural frontier of the Stateof Para (figure 1).The rate of deforestation and thenumber of cattle are not the same inthe three municipalities.The low deforestation rate in Altamira(4%) is in fact due to the huge sizeof the municipality (640,679 km2) andthe very limited road access to thesouthern part. In the neighbouringmunicipalities, which are far smallerand almost completely settled bymigrant farmers, deforestation doesnot exceed 40% of the land. The herdcomprises half a million cattle.In Redencao and neighbouring muni-cipalities, the deforestation rate is farabove the 20% limit laid down in theForest law and the 50% limit actuallytolerated. Except in Cumaru munici-pality where deforestation is only 41%,the deforestation rate in our examples

0 375 750 1.500Km

Redençao

Altamira

Oceano Atlântico

MA

TO

MT

RO

AC

AM

RR

PA

Peru

Produzido per IPAM 2011

Fontes de dados: INPE, 2011

Legal borders of Amazon States

No Forest

Forest

Deforestation until 2010

Border of Amazon Bioma

Colombia

Venezuela

GuianaSuriname Guiana Francesa

Paragominas

N

AC

AH

RO

FA

IIT

RRAP

HA

TD

F1

CERN

PCAL

SE

PO

SA

DFGO

HG

HS

SP

PR

SC

RS

Venezuela Guiana

Guiana FrancesaColombia

Equador

Peru

Bolivia

Paraguai

Chile

ArgentinaUruguai

BRASIL

Suriname

MJ

Legal borders of Amazon States

Amazon Bioma

Legal borders of Amazon States

Amazon Bioma

Figure 1. Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon in 2010 (source IPAM, 2011).

Figure 1. Déforestation en Amazonie brésilienne en 2010 (source IPAM, 2011).

248 Cah Agric, vol. 24, n8 4, juillet-aout 2015

is between 60% and 80%. Cattle densityin the deforested area is low (between0.77/ha and 0.91/ha, table 1), less thanthe Amazonian average of one animalper hectare.In Paragominas, deforestation is high(between 44% and 65%, table 1),but generally does not exceed the50% tolerated in the state of Para. Thecurrent low livestock density pointsto diversification in land use (cropsand forestry).

A comprehensive approachto local dynamicsThe research we conducted was inter-disciplinary, and included agronomists,livestock scientists, geographers, andhistorians. We interviewed differentgroups of stakeholders involved inlivestock farming:

– medium and large scale farmers;– small family farmers (who farm lessthan 220 ha in Paragominas, 300 ha inAltamira and Redencao);– livestock supply chains and agro-industry staff (traders, slaughterhouseowners, etc.);– producers associations, coopera-tives, trades unions;– federal government and localadministration staff (including exten-sion services);

– staff of banks and financial agencies;– NGOs.The redundancy and triangulationtechnique (Copans, 1999) was usedto select the total number of inter-views (between 12 and 15 perlocality).Open interviews were conductedto collect information to answer fivequestions formulated by the group ofresearchers:– What were the different steps inthe interactions between livestockfarming and the territorial structuring?– What functions does livestock farm-ing fulfil in local development?– What new technologies or changesin currently used livestock systemscorrespond to the intensification ofproduction?– What factors facilitate or hinderthe intensification of livestockproduction?– Are there any scenarios for thefuture development of livestockfarming in the territory?Forty-one interviews were conductedbetween June and September 2011.The data were compiled by all theteam members at the end ofeach interview and after the finalinterview sessions. The data werethen analyzed collectively by theteam during workshops before theresults were published.

The efficiency ofpublic deforestationpolicies with respectto the intensificationof livestock farmingIn a previous paper (Vaz et al., 2012),we showed that cattle ranching wasone of the main driving forces behindthe colonization of the Amazon fromthe 1960s on, as well as behind localdevelopment. We also showed thatfarmers and stakeholders involvedin beef supply chains have bornethe brunt of the drastic change infederal policy with the launching ofthe consortium to stop deforestation.Despite being a federal objective,which also included the creation oftrans-Amazonian highways and thecapital city Brasilia in 1960, agricul-tural colonization was poorly planned.Until recently, land was not a limitingfactor for extensive livestock produc-tion (0.8 cattle unit/ha); it was basedon the slash and burn of forest plotsthat were replaced by managedpasture. The lack of federal andlocal efforts to enforce the policyencouraged deforestation beyondthe legal limit. What is more, until

Table 1. Deforestation and livestock in the three study areas and seven neighbouring municipalities.Tableau 1. Couvert forestier et cheptel dans les trois communes de l'étude et sept communes voisines.

Municipality Total area (km2) Deforestedarea (%)

Deforestationper year (%)

Total n° of cattle Cattle density(n°/ha deforested)

Paragominas 19,452 44.2 0.35 315,720 0.37

Rondon do Par�a 8,286 65.4 0.64 349,871 0.65

Tome Acu 5,168 56.9 0.71 116,021 0.39

Redencão 3,830 69.4 1.1 204,296 0.77

Santana de Araguaí 11,607 60.9 0.35 545,523 0.77

Cumaru do Norte 17,106 41.12 0.25 638,983 0.91

Rio Maria 4,123 81.66 0.1 299,016 0.89

Altamira 159,701 4.27 0.12 555,324 0.81

Brasil Novo 6,370 39.73 0.79 206,099 0.81

Medicilândia 8,271 23.5 0.57 103,939 0.53

Source : PRODES, 2010.

249Cah Agric, vol. 24, n8 4, juillet-aout 2015

2008, 50% of the area of a farm –entirely covered by forest – had to becleared to legitimize appropriation.The remaining 50%, called the legalreserve, had to be conserved asprimary forest and not exploited.In 2008, the federal governmentcreated an environmental land register(Brazilian acronym CAR) to regularizethe situation or at least to recordcurrent land use. Without this certifi-cation, livestock farmers could nolonger sell animals to slaughterhousesor contract bank loans. In parallel, aconsortium of federal agencies imple-mented a repressive command andcontrol policy. A ‘‘blacklist’’ of themunicipalities with the highest rates ofdeforestation is published annually;the process of creating protected areasis accelerating and regularizing agri-cultural land is now the only wayto obtain environmental certification.Application of the labor law wasstrengthened. Livestock farmers, bigand small, felt they were trapped in adeadlock. From 2008 on, all thestakeholders started looking for alter-native ways to produce and markettheir production, at the farm, supplychain, and local scale.

Alternative ways tointensify livestockfarming: from geneticsto agro-ecologyIn all three municipalities, all thestakeholders agreed that livestockfarming can no longer rely on openingup new spaces; the message ‘‘zerodeforestation’’ has now got throughto everyone, although all the stake-holders mentioned the lack ofresearch, training, and technical andinstitutional support (table 2).We classified the alternatives in threecategories, depending on how theyaffect ecological processes and on theirscale of implementation (figure 2).

Conventional alternativeways of increasing livestockproductivityConventional alternatives deal withthe production system at the scale ofthe individual plot or animal.

Genetics: in the Amazon, the produc-tivity of livestock systems is still oftenvery low. Genetic improvement is ananimal scale alternativewhose aim is toincrease carcass weight or milk yieldwith dedicated breeds. This alternativecan be classified as weak intensifica-tion; reducing deforestation at localscale is feasible if the other livestockpractices, such as pasture manage-ment, are intensified (see below).Pasture fertilization and plowing:renewal of pasture including soilpreparation and sowing of grass,mostly Brachiaria bryzantha, eventhough this particular cultivar facesserious recurrent problems caused bypests. This alternative is based on theuse of chemical inputs and of mechan-ized equipment to increase biomassproduction and control weed. It iswidely promoted by research andextension, as well as being encouragedby agro-industry. The success ofthis alternative relies on the experienceof individual farmers, and conse-quently does not require coordination(figure 2). This may be one reasonfor its rapid and widespread adop-tion. One exception is plowing onsmall family farms. Mechanizationdepends on federal or municipaldevelopment programs, which allo-cate collective equipment to a givenrural community, and consequentlyrequires coordination between thefarmers concerned.

Alternative ways ofincreasing overall farmviability and efficiencyThese alternatives are applied at thescale of one farm or of a group offarms, and affect the organizationallevel of farming. They involve differ-ent forms of diversification, fromincluding intercrops such as animalforage in the livestock system, torelatively disconnected activities, (forexample wood and livestock produc-tion), and varying rates of forestecosystem or natural resources use.iLPF (crop-livestock-tree forest sys-tems): a national Brazilian researchprogram supports this alternative(Santos et al., 2010, Balbino et al.,2011) and large scale farmers considerit to be a model of modern agriculture.Crops, mainly soybean or maize, areharvested for grain or silage and may

be part of the intensification of thecattle feed system. Indeed, maizesilage improves the quality and quan-tity of both milk and meat especiallyin the dry season. iLPF also enablespasture renewal including usingannual crops, and the planting orconservation of trees of economicvalue (eucalyptus or theca for timber)provide some shade for the cattle. Theaim here is to increase land produc-tivity (fertility, cash crops) and animalproductivity (feeding system). It issupported by the structuring of thecereal, timber, and of course, milk andmeat sectors. The diffusion of thisalternative also depends on coordina-tion between stakeholders at localscale (figure 2).Balde cheio (Full bucket) is a Braziliansupport program for the intensifica-tion of dairy farms, mainly based onincreasing the productivity of animalsand pasture and improving the animalfeeding system (Camargo et al., 2006).In theory, this alternative is designedfor small family farms and involvestechnical and organizational changes(figure 2). The two most frequentlymentioned focuses of the balde cheioproject were the rules of hygiene formilking and daily rotational grazing toimprove pasture productivity usingchemical fertilizers and mechanizedweed control. Reconstruction of forestprotected area is also an objective.Implementation generally includesan annual technical and economicdiagnosis of small family farms. Theprototype was implemented on tenhectares, but it is widely cited by theowners of large scale farms (fazendas)(table 2).Agro-forestry systems (AFS): Thisalternative covers a range of economicfarming activities that take advantageof tree species including cacao, theca,or pepper, combined with animal andvegetable production. These systemswere most often mentioned by smallproducers and extension agents(table 2). AFS are designed to increasefarm income and to take advantage ofthe forest ecosystem. According tocurrent negotiations concerning theBrazilian Forest Law, the species used(cacao, pepper) could be among thespecies authorized for the rehabilita-tion degraded or protected forestareas. This alternative was mentionedby municipal secretaries and by thefarmers themselves as being suitable

250 Cah Agric, vol. 24, n8 4, juillet-aout 2015

Table 2. Alternatives mentioned by stakeholders, target farmers and staff of institutions.Tableau 2. Alternatives citées par les acteurs, agriculteurs-cibles et institutions impliquées.

Alternatives Scale Type of stakeholder Target farmers Design and Implementation

Genetics Plot

Small family farmers (ATM, RDC)Big farmers (PGM)Rural extension (RDC, PGM)Agroindustry (beef: ATM, Milk:PGM)

All farmers Private and publicresearch and extension

Pasture fertilization Plot

Small family farmers (ATM, RDC)Small family farmers union (ATM)Big farmers (ATM, PGM)Rural extension (ATM, PGM)Agroindustry (beef: ATM, RDC;milk: PGM)Municipal secretaries (ATM)Bank (RDC, PGM)

All farmers Private and publicresearch and extension

Plowing Plot/Territory

Small family farmers union (ATM)Big famers (ATM, RDC)Big farmers union (ATM)Rural extension (ATM, RDC)Agroindustry (ATM)Municipal secretaries (ATM)

All farmers Private and publicresearch and extension

Crop-Livestock-ForestryIntegration (iLPF) Farm

Big Farmers (ATM, RDC, PGM)Big farmers union (RDC)Rural extension (ATM, RDC, PGM)Municipal secretaries (PGM)NGO (environmental: PGM)

Big farmers Private and publicresearch and extension

Balde cheio Farm

Small family farmers (ATM, PGM)Small family farmers union (RDC)Big farmers (ATM, PGM)Rural extension (ATM, RDC)Agroindustry (beef:ATM, milk : RDC)Municipal secretaries (PGM)Bank (ATM)NGO (environmental: PGM)

Small familyfarmers

Private and publicresearch and extension

Agroforestry Systems Farm

Small family farmers (ATM, RDC)Small family farmers union (RDC)Big farmers (ATM)Municipal secretaries (ATM, RDC)Bank (ATM)

Small (mid)farmers Research + NGOs

Green municipality Territory

Big farmers (RDC, PGM)Agroindustry (RDC)Municipal secretaries (ATM, PGM)Banks (ATM, PGM)

All farmers Municipality + NGOs

Certification TerritoryBig farmers (RDC, PGM)Agroindustry (RDC)Big Farmers union (RDC)

All farmers Agroindustry + (research)

Agro-ecology Farm/Territory

Rural extension (ATM)Municipal secretaries (ATM, PGM) Small farmers NGOs + (research)

ATM = Altamira; RDC = Redenção; PGM = Paragominas

251Cah Agric, vol. 24, n8 4, juillet-aout 2015

for small family farms, as oppose toiLPF (table 2). One difference is thespatial organization of the species:iLPF separates crops and tree produc-tion, whereas in agroforestry systems,the tree species are mixed with cropsin the same area or plot at a given time.The diffusion of this alternative isindependent of the supply chain; themain goal is to reduce productioncosts by benefitting from ecologicalprocesses.

Alternatives ways toincrease the efficiency of thesupply chain or of theterritoryCertification is a quality initiativethat was introduced by industry(e.g. by slaughterhouses in Redencao,Paragominas and Altamira) to givea ‘‘green’’ image to their products.Stakeholders are taking advantageof the environmental pressures anddebate to improve the efficiency of thesector. Certificationdefinesanumberofkey actions that vary depending onthe supply chain’s specifications, andare a combination of the alternativeslisted above. For example, in the caseof livestock, this implies:– compliance with environmentalcertification on the use of the farmland (CAR);

– increasing carcass weight;– improving feed for fattening byproviding fodder in dry periods andimproving pasture management.The term green municipality refers toa local arrangement for agriculturaltransition, an initiative tested in Para-gominas, which became a model forgreen development in the Amazonianstate of Para (figure 2). It consistsof coordinating the actions of localinstitutions, including those of muni-cipal secretaries for agriculture, for theenvironment and for trade, of farmers’unions, and of TNC (Nature Conserva-tion NGO). This international NGOhas been contracted to implementthe rural environmental certification(CAR) of farms of over 300 ha, thusexcluding family farms (table 2).From a technical point of view, theinitiative consists of implementingiLPFs by combining actions at threescales, the plot or animal scale, thefarm scale, and the municipal scale.The introduction of iLPFs depends onthe soil potential for crop production,which necessarily relegates livestockproduction systems to areas of lowagronomic potential. iLPFs are locatednear roads to facilitate the transportand storage of grain.Agro-ecology aims to increase theautonomy of small family farms basedon organic agriculture. Currently, agro-ecology is only mentioned by ruralextension agents and is supported by

local NGOs in Altamira (table 2).Indeed, the isolation of the area hasaffected both the population’s way ofthinking and the local dynamics in away that is favorable for autonomousagricultural models. However, thisalternative is not really collectivelyimplemented and is mainly lookedon as a desirable agricultural shift forthe future of family farms, ‘‘a utopianidea’’ according to a member of thestaff of a rural extension service.

How do thesealternatives relateto ecologicalintensification?

Historically, in the Amazon, livestockwas a way of securing land ownership,whereas production was less of apriority. In this context, intensifyinglivestock farming is a difficult step forboth large and small family farmers.Our results show that all stakeholdersinvolved in cattle production perceivethe need to shift from extensive andforest damaging practices to environ-mentally friendly practices. But theirknowledge mainly concerns intensifi-cation sensu stricto, i.e. increasingproductivity per plot or per animal.Aside from respecting the law on thepreservation of the forest ecosystem,stakeholders appeared to be littleconcerned by ecological aspects.Alternatives are rarely based on eco-system functioning. They mainly relyon conventional techniques using che-mical inputs, genetics and equipmentbut seek to reduce the negative impacton the environment. Thus, most alter-natives are more in line with ‘‘weakecological intensification’’ (Duru et al.,2014). They are considered to be‘‘universal’’, i.e. suitable for both smalland large farmers, but they do notaccount for the specificities of familyfarms in terms of the knowledge, cashmanagement and investment capacity,and the consequences of their applica-tion for the work load. Agro-forestrysystems and agro-ecology are more inline with improved integration ofproduction and the ecosystem. Indeed,agro-forestry systems are one of thealternatives specifically mentioned for

Inte

grat

ion

of e

colo

gica

l pro

cess

es

Plot/animal Production system Territory

Scale/level of organisation

Fertilization

Genetics

Agroforestrysystems

“Baldecheio”

Crop-Livestock-

forestrysystems

Greenmunicipality

Agro-ecology

Plowing

Figure 2. Alternatives to extensive livestock practices mentioned by stakeholders.

Figure 2. Alternatives aux pratiques extensives d'élevage citées par les acteurs.

252 Cah Agric, vol. 24, n8 4, juillet-aout 2015

the future of family farms in theAmazon (the other alternative dedi-cated to family farming is dairy inten-sification). Both alternatives –agroforestry and agro-ecology – aremodels of land sharing, with the ideaof increasing land and labor produc-tivity. Concerning agro-ecology, only afew isolated experiments have beenconducted, and these systems areconsidered to be ‘‘utopian’’ or difficultto implement (table 2). Models likebalde cheio lacks context-specificknowledge and they do not accountfor the range of different farm scalesand types of organization. The familywork load and market opportunitiesare the main obstacles to their applica-tion in remote areas, especially onfamily farms (Carvalho, 2011), with theexception of certain key productssuch as acaı berries (Cialdella andNavegantes, 2014).Given the decline in deforestation, thepolitical consortium for ‘‘zero defores-tation’’ can be said to have achieved itsgoal following a traditional approachto nature conservation based on a‘‘land sparing’’ strategy. However, theland sparing strategy appears to bemost efficient for conserving biodiver-sity in fragmented landscapes, wherefew natural ecosystems survive inlandscapes the majority of which iscultivated (Egan & Mortensen, 2012).Land sparing strategies are thus appro-priate in highly deforested regions likeRedencao or Paragominas municipa-lities, which accounts for about 17% ofthe Brazilian Amazon. The LowCarbonProgram for Agriculture (Brazilianacronym Programa ABC) (MAPA,2012) and the National Plan for Agro-ecology and Organic Production (Bra-zilian acronym PLANA-PO) (MDA,2013) are emblematic of the choicesmade by the federal government today.The first is recommended for all typesof farms, large or small, once therequirements are met. But with theexception of the balde cheio alterna-tive, family farms often cannot meetthese requirements.Supported by the Ministry of Agricul-ture (MAPA), the ABC programaims to reduce the carbon impact ofthe Brazilian food sector; it had a3.15 billion R$ (R$1 = US$0.328 USD)budget in 2011/2012. The Ministry ofRural Development (MDA) is interestedin sustainable rural and local develop-ment, especially in strengthening small

family farmers. The PLANA-PO pro-gram, supported by the MDA, aims toimprove organic production, agrofor-estry systems, and land-sharing alter-natives. Its budget was about R$260 million in 2011/2012. For manyreasons linked to the history of Braziland to economic issues, the Braziliangovernment strongly supports these twocontrasted sets of policies.The financial discrepancy betweenthe two programs partly explains theBrazilian government’s position ondevelopment and conservation policy,and also why local actors know littleabout these models. We also wonderto what extent the lack of alternativesaimed at ‘‘strong ecological intensifi-cation’’, i.e. mimicking nature toencourage natural and free ecologicalprocesses, could be due to technolo-gical lock-in (Van Loqueren and Baret,2009). The two policy trends supportand also reinforce the idea that familyfarmers have to be more embedded innature while cropping than agribusi-ness. This dichotomy is partly aconsequence of land planning andscale of action (state and federation) ofthe policy, but it erases environmentalheterogeneity as far as local land-useand social trades-off (Grau et al.,2013). Real situations are often morecomplex. The coordination of federaland local actions thus needs to bestrengthened to promote a set of goodpractices to further improve the trendof reducing deforestation (Araujoet al., 2010).

Conclusion

Amazonian colonization was madepossible by the development of exten-sive cattle ranching, based on destroy-ing the forest. Today, this model ofagriculture is challenged by differentpressures, all of which convergetowards zero deforestation. There isthus an urgent need to change thepractices of farmers and of stake-holders of the meat supply chain, andin particular to increase the productiv-ity of their production system. Most ofthe paths to livestock intensificationthese stakeholders foresee correspondto standard techniques to increaseproductivity, which were promotedduring the green revolution. However,we witnessed a rediscovery, by

researchanddevelopment, of the valueof crop rotation, of the management ofsoil fertility through the use of fallowand pasture, of diversification, and at alarger scale, a search for increased farmautonomy, as well as increased aware-ness of the ecological and economicrole of traditional systems such as agro-forestry. Even in this regionwhere bothagricultural development and forestconservation are very sensitive issues,the links between intensification andecology, between livestock and forest,remain to be constructed and need toaccount for the specific context anddiversity of farms, with different con-straints and opportunities to adoptdifferent strategies. &

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all theinterviewees in Altamira, Paragominasand Redencao and Daphne Goodfellowfor correcting the English. This work wasfunded by the French Agence Nationale dela Recherche under the project ANR-2010-STRA-005 MOUVE (Les interactions Ele-vage et Territoire dans la mise en mouve-ment de l’intensification ecologique).

References

Altieri M, 2002. Agro-ecology: the science ofnatural resource management for poor farmers inmarginal environments agriculture. Ecosystemsand Environment 93:1-24.

Araújo de Oliveira SR, Costa de Assis F, AguiarAPD, Mann de Toledo P, Vieira ICG, Câmara G,2010. Desmatamento, trajetórias tecnológicasrurais e metas de contenção de emissões naAmazônia. Ciência e Cultura 62(4):56-9.

Balbino LC, Barcellos De AO, Stone LF, 2011.Marco referencial: integração lavoura-pecuária-floresta (ILPF). Brasília, DF: Embrapa.

Bonny S, 2011. L'agriculture écologiquementintensive : nature et défis. Cahiers Agricultures20(6):451-62. doi: 10.1684/agr.2011.0526

Camargo de AC, Noaves NJ, Novo ALN, et al.,2006. Projeto balde cheio: Transferência de tecno-logia na produção leiteira. Embrapa: ComunicadoTécnico;73.

Carvalho S, 2011. Entre opportunisme et persis-tance. Quelles dynamiques et perspectives d'évo-lution pour les exploitations laitières familiales de laTransamazonienne? Thèse de doctorat : AgroPar-isTech, Paris.

Cialdella N, Navegantes-Alves L, 2014. La ruéevers l'açaí : trajectoires d'un fruit emblématiqued'Amazonie. Revue Tiers Monde 220:119-35.

Copans J, 1999. L'enquête ethnologique de terrain :l'enquête et ses méthodes. Paris: Armand Colin.

253Cah Agric, vol. 24, n8 4, juillet-aout 2015

Doré T, Makowski D, Malézieux E, Munier-Jolain N,Tchamitchian M, Tittonell P, 2011. Facing up theparadigm of ecological intensification in agronomy:revisiting methods, concepts and knowledge.European Journal of Agronomy 34:197-210.

Duru M, Fares M, Therond O, 2014. Un cadreconceptuel pour penser dans les territoires. CahiersAgricultures 23:84-95. doi: 10.1684/agr.2014.0691

Egan JF, Mortensen DA, 2012. A comparison ofland-sharing and land-sparing strategies for plantrichness conservation in agricultural landscapes.Ecological Applications 22:459-71.

Grau R, Kuemmerle T, Macchi L, 2013. Beyond'land sparing versus land sharing': environmentalheterogeneity, globalization and the balancebetween agricultural production and nature conser-vation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustain-ability 5:477-83.

Griffon M, 2013. Qu'est-ce que l'agricultureécologiquement intensive ? Paris: Éditions Quae.

Hubert B, Rosegrant M, van Boekel MAJS, Ortiz R,2010. The future of food: scenarios for 2050. CropScience 50:33-50.

IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estadisti-cas), 2010. Produção da Pecuária Municipal. http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/economia/ppm/2010/

Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia(IPAM), 2011. Desmatamento n'a Amazônia.

http://www.ipam.org.br/saiba-mais/Desmatamento-em-Foco/9

Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abasteci-mento, 2012. Plano de agricultura de baixa emissãode carbono - ABC. Brasília: MAPA/ACS.

Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário, 2013.Plano Nacional de Agroecologia e produção orga-nica-PLANA-PO. Brasília: MDA.

Nepstad D, McGrath D, Stickler C, et al., 2014.Slowing Amazon deforestation through publicpolicy and interventions in beef and soy supplychains. Science 344:1118-23.

Poccard-Chapuis R, Thales M, Venturieri A, PikettyM-G, Merte S, Veiga JB, Tourrand J-F, 2005. Lafilière viande : un levier pour contrôler les dynami-ques pionnières en Amazonie brésilienne ? CahiersAgricultures 14(1):53-8.

PRODES, 2010. Monitoramento da FlorestaAmazônica Brasilia porc satélite. http://www.obt.inpe.br/prodes/index.php

Santos LDT, Sales NLP, Duarte ER, Oliveira FLR,Mendes LR, eds. Integração Lavoura-Pecuária-Floresta: alternativa para produção sustentávelnos trópicos. Montes Claros (Brasil): Instituto deCiências Agrarias da UFMG.

Sayago D, Tourrand JF, Burstyn M, Drummond JA,2004. Amazônia. Cenas e cenários. Brasilia: UnB.

Sheil D, Murdiyarso D, 2009. How forests attractrain: an examination of a new hypothesis.

BioScience 59(4):341-7. doi: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.4.12

Soares-Filho B, Moutinho P, Nepstad D, et al.,2010. Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas inclimate change mitigation. PNAS 107(24):10821-6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0913048107

Titonell P, 2014. Ecological intensification ofagriculture - sustainable by nature. Current Opinionin Environmental Sustainability 8:53-61.

Tourrand JF, PikettyMG, Oliveira JRD, et al., 2002.Élevage bovin, déforestation et développementrégional : le cas du Sud du Pará, Amazoniebrésilienne. Bois et Forêts des Tropiques 280:5-16.

Vanloqueren G, Baret PV, 2009. How agriculturalresearch systems shape a technological regime thatdevelops genetic engineering but locks out agroe-cological innovations. Research Policy 38:971-83.

Vaz V, Carvalho S, Barnosa T, et al., 2012. Apecuária na agenda ambiental da Amazônia brasi-leira: percepções e representações dos atoreslocais. Dossiê Rede de Estudos Rurais 3:64-90.

Veiga J, Tourrand JF, Piketty M, et al., 2004.Expansão e trajetórias da pecuária na Amazônia.Brasília-DF: UNB.

Wezel A, Bellon S, Doré A, Francis C, Vallod D,David C, 2009. Agroecology as a science, amovement and a practice. A review. Agronomyfor Sustainable Development 29(4):503-15.

254 Cah Agric, vol. 24, n8 4, juillet-aout 2015