<%BANNER%>

Effectiveness of an Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Extension Program for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Agrofo...

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101118_AAAADG INGEST_TIME 2010-11-19T00:11:26Z PACKAGE UFE0015301_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 7380 DFID F20101118_AACCKC ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH painter_k_Page_105thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
259a6b040c8bd1629e5c58e2e9d27056
SHA-1
900cc7e5ca66b767c9eeb882ac9a98bb267251fa
70638 F20101118_AACCJO painter_k_Page_009.jpg
86dd852aa280cdf34c3205577c9c2703
d18e43a9bbc1c00d75b4893d03e0d27b1a145a3a
6614 F20101118_AACCIZ painter_k_Page_052thm.jpg
1419bf75da6bcf0991c9b71aa18b869f
369d009aa7cab4e4870f1463259ab6051007ada3
796201 F20101118_AACCKD painter_k_Page_046.jp2
e8ff4fc7c75052128c42672b3fa4bc8a
bd499d88c28610c8eb748eed5aecc087f7490f74
112979 F20101118_AACCJP painter_k_Page_076.jp2
e99574c7679291e73a878dca2f51fd37
62b167996d38e8c73907de2cf83ad9e7367832b9
6337 F20101118_AACCKE painter_k_Page_049thm.jpg
96a4ae549b30eb9995d1ee5499ed79a1
8105e2d05f6f3a9c1fa4efda9716dea2a653fe65
1471 F20101118_AACCJQ painter_k_Page_015.txt
af12770b26ee74c346913af482c50039
c7c1b2f617e26c549c8380010e17352bfb8d1f21
1432 F20101118_AACCKF painter_k_Page_069.txt
576d6e5d56a5044c64da831149a1c421
2726baaf757819f1b87ac451db3bd736d8b6c093
1280 F20101118_AACCJR painter_k_Page_002.pro
c70f59c214daecdcf6f14a39d7aec3bf
ed41b4c7f430db59277bf5c540ec8ac494ac20ac
1053954 F20101118_AACCKG painter_k_Page_074.tif
b10494a823e154a5daa0d2ca92afc5a3
74e25d9f32e72b6e7dd6f207903a953f3f30a0e3
104815 F20101118_AACCJS painter_k_Page_074.jp2
833f882b8bf28055d4cff0296a7e492a
9d7f71a0829c0c125710749e0d48f1c79d9f513d
57870 F20101118_AACCKH painter_k_Page_107.pro
2cf5304db9390cfcf1af5f252ab302e1
a92e48519d9bdb65d2b7941afdb25904ad3f0ca1
15811 F20101118_AACCJT painter_k_Page_110.pro
5cc4da9661cb9d61d0b64bc9f1026bed
caf6f2caa788f4720a583c61b0e77b6940f6ed2a
20171 F20101118_AACCKI painter_k_Page_027.QC.jpg
35c0bf1c6b536680c5b65a4d80f67f33
af908cf2a3dc06dc42d7cffcdec959c7c2260209
71768 F20101118_AACCKJ painter_k_Page_060.jpg
ec47134700f4d2ef92da0ab96ba74236
3908ffa739d7a1d18697bf24e4fe953e6f690818
6364 F20101118_AACCJU painter_k_Page_026thm.jpg
b6009628799f2dca3d88185a2b2bc01d
4662b20945299bac7bfa1ca77fd9ddc65c72086f
1783 F20101118_AACCKK painter_k_Page_073.txt
466241b0805c77890343c5b3ab602bd6
b0bf1a4b4e2d88352dc1990d390d838fab32769c
97942 F20101118_AACCJV painter_k_Page_078.jp2
5dca3523e68ec3eafc6b2bc15138684a
8bea2cf3da2e507b59a0d80ff201936010efc243
67720 F20101118_AACCKL painter_k_Page_031.jpg
bb3028174d747f7533d22da2402dad93
13acb6b3540b03455bdd1d52025876c894ea74d3
5837 F20101118_AACCJW painter_k_Page_039thm.jpg
414d2ab6ee6b33146268c803c216872f
f32f735c179bef1af578e2258067fd779012c05e
101355 F20101118_AACCKM painter_k_Page_083.jp2
a719e52667dc2d76fc355e45f99fad64
2c2706e15c8b3943b1b08489f0e529aea4b2b849
41805 F20101118_AACCJX painter_k_Page_034.pro
99f83730d0d27471e7fdea85df05372d
2b9f597b57856ddbfc2efebe11334b87a3836752
24430 F20101118_AACCLA painter_k_Page_004.pro
13e2d05bbfe1651977f976de85b0e0d8
1e149595c6f906fc56af6a344ee551682686e386
93833 F20101118_AACCKN painter_k_Page_098.jp2
b0489180afd8ada5d13a81537a67a929
4992d4a02406f2da1ce946da7ed414da3d19f0b1
5505 F20101118_AACCJY painter_k_Page_036thm.jpg
c99059af518cd883ee3ffdda3117cc17
6bd37677fd7bd7b4fcfac65e6092fb917a142a1c
1992 F20101118_AACCLB painter_k_Page_049.txt
7f9f4907fc1ee46c9b1a8ec642bce87b
b1054f7ef1903fd0e81485e65386f355953fa2c2
4874 F20101118_AACCKO painter_k_Page_090thm.jpg
a53ba1e67b426091a0586f47db027c6d
da29753e528aa5dfdbf15434cd642682f9d69c61
1679 F20101118_AACCJZ painter_k_Page_048.txt
826b2b5e633977a3f5620014a9943f92
7745b6f331f7364a3d38735b289d931a356b0b03
67910 F20101118_AACCLC painter_k_Page_093.jpg
b041bbc7511681e7db50abd6eb1c5a30
3bc0624a16fadc07f7c6e0eee8de35a5784e9546
86041 F20101118_AACCKP painter_k_Page_108.jpg
e6ddcbacc6406e4b8b1f7c900b452f79
794ea1421a60a0c410b28280f5f406b4514d0aa6
22351 F20101118_AACCLD painter_k_Page_077.QC.jpg
04e4d9bad4e10e39c92a0599b8796d50
ddd1965b4d6fb55936485d188c738dacbdb4ea1e
50425 F20101118_AACCKQ painter_k_Page_049.pro
b553cbb8e5bddeb8c1e9c1f19a76b96e
8eb8fac5d6b1c2f2d45b1f830c81eb9b39bead09
17729 F20101118_AACCLE painter_k_Page_072.QC.jpg
b73a42c88a207b321c5ac0bf955dc7d8
4d707f23d807f5a279eeff16afeb6c4cb2c9d54e
47595 F20101118_AACCKR painter_k_Page_032.pro
d2937a3a4474e76a0aa83966c8e81bb5
2f145714c7c1ebcc00d159beb2be5fb79bbe1fad
3595 F20101118_AACCLF painter_k_Page_041thm.jpg
85f7b5cf85231b38a6c108d54406c941
7a91df1ca1b015d4d2c13f6676ba7db2ff86ad02
107728 F20101118_AACCLG painter_k_Page_020.jp2
89bdef8f318dcd9a60a1e1676cdaa1c5
2f80604d0e6b08a8f326812c71a2658941501cc8
688627 F20101118_AACCKS painter_k_Page_045.jp2
62c74c5fc59cdc4e24a66fcdcd04703a
4462dde53b9a99fd03f790489cfa7e1d8d414ae1
48098 F20101118_AACCLH painter_k_Page_071.pro
b2a3903feef5c4069a722d27773f3a57
ba4ae0fd1e136db70b10966dc3f88034518c4122
19738 F20101118_AACCKT painter_k_Page_109.QC.jpg
6da89c23a2fc29111a2bc71b752cd1c0
52d2e0a2dbfca4782979895a0fce473d21be3de2
21591 F20101118_AACCLI painter_k_Page_019.QC.jpg
c1016984ab298130ac844f9ae0441c3e
8688cb592aaddd4835c3365587752e45ab131117
19585 F20101118_AACCKU painter_k_Page_036.QC.jpg
b0b32d958ca869e98763b97ddfb5d22c
bb2c5a4de41e6ee74f432ccc2c728471a8bd7cec
49037 F20101118_AACCLJ painter_k_Page_101.pro
b753aa3af994cb89a59f1354e0d3095d
289c86d17a037ede6407fe16a56a9673c723bc37
F20101118_AACCLK painter_k_Page_044.tif
5848ae26249edaf5dbcc0568baf7e155
57a9532fc555c2cc71135892f9862e3c67473ee9
71681 F20101118_AACCKV painter_k_Page_005.jpg
958274d3f4c18ed4afb1517b96e88fa6
df9b255826834d01b5d4688cc4714b8fede4f1e9
262 F20101118_AACCLL painter_k_Page_056.txt
2eb57e586c62d523f95e40e4d669e0e3
65e41c4d705133abe9b4fc24861a3b2a682c68ba
1465 F20101118_AACCKW painter_k_Page_079.txt
e9e56c909b2c889eee2fd5db718ffcf0
52b0136c916b84194166914a35d7f22c463ddf61
21519 F20101118_AACCMA painter_k_Page_023.QC.jpg
195dbca90a87a480fce7a88ccc725700
27f04584c21007ee36dd23dd0a14163029355b7e
60523 F20101118_AACCLM painter_k_Page_012.jpg
f2f60f0c1f12189ada2ff538bbf73c22
ec5daf6100e89fc2a16a525c3fa1567ad9dab254
62894 F20101118_AACCKX painter_k_Page_037.jp2
d89877401bffe41f61985d3d44d06fa9
dfa4ee02be52a2e48588cd0634e0ae9f15b1ebc2
50939 F20101118_AACCMB painter_k_Page_065.jpg
654f9392931976f73a3bb4262ef763e3
256453d608d5cc167f70bbd096615a987d70b255
22333 F20101118_AACCLN painter_k_Page_029.QC.jpg
3237dce1236bc7fad820bb708faf96a2
a57cca126a1d9e98cd8931778690955d129e3a95
104651 F20101118_AACCKY painter_k_Page_051.jp2
8d67e8676a869de1bdedb97be94c9687
efa1468c1bbf347653866be8868e8c3a5892b14f
36710 F20101118_AACCMC painter_k_Page_015.pro
45d993edb492a5c058c50b3d37b187e1
e71efaa94724ef1e4e2f4b23b2f06c883763989e
1862 F20101118_AACCLO painter_k_Page_026.txt
59685b28e81d660f307cbff37ff3f56d
a55ffbe6d81cc2bc44484bc59fab99434ca36260
20883 F20101118_AACCKZ painter_k_Page_068.QC.jpg
24fbe08bb96521f719a6b3caab81e216
2baa2f2c13ab5909a10651d8e436392c0e4b79df
4759 F20101118_AACCMD painter_k_Page_089thm.jpg
481a165f05086b5a081601dedc6f77e6
9d2e2f4bb7c18e0853c3610e18d68b81310e49bc
101640 F20101118_AACCLP painter_k_Page_019.jp2
f6c456c50f6d4b0df9b9d52889434c50
9675aac7341ca94b8b33b7a42406f1a2ca2c2055
19529 F20101118_AACCME painter_k_Page_039.QC.jpg
a65b6d67396df21c41445756862929a6
46a5ccc613bacbe1ed3d4b0941b15f390b63afd6
F20101118_AACCLQ painter_k_Page_010.tif
fbd60e0e69029a5a4fd0e70d7c03acf1
321b23884df1ab8b96541c8132c2327295be8cac
1727 F20101118_AACCMF painter_k_Page_057.txt
9e08be125fca4ceb7b0b076285b7b8f1
c900f575a899a64526411f7c85e318df8e49b8ee
25271604 F20101118_AACCLR painter_k_Page_091.tif
38b1975271119bd1888c5fed2da57166
1615f6941af5746e78c3c28f10241f8f5bd816e7
F20101118_AACCMG painter_k_Page_017.tif
ca2ae937ce6f0d18a397f919ebee53d7
c3f0381507e3532aa82e9d8e154ea29c65bbf585
109150 F20101118_AACCLS painter_k_Page_062.jp2
460e6759b07a6c5197ace3c56bc69c43
46675a6af4aba147a8520842e4fcad13a8fb1394
86338 F20101118_AACCMH painter_k_Page_104.jpg
03912422ed14b3d83f7458463083b0b1
a65dc065404c8c80cab80577c42110419cfe9895
99846 F20101118_AACCLT painter_k_Page_017.jp2
9c056c62b59cf1e43ffca1a411925688
1f0eaef01e7434ad274c217c49001945f525ce40
F20101118_AACCMI painter_k_Page_022.tif
47dbc3097a7cb4326c0b25b0ca9f8615
cda4bfdcbe6425f833800aad78886246acd9951c
1942 F20101118_AACCLU painter_k_Page_025.txt
2a35283279ba8d4affb2b0b6cf6934a5
0b2eb18f6ffb9efdeb02cad68224f8493691d5ca
7291 F20101118_AACCMJ painter_k_Page_106thm.jpg
d180e8c57f0570ddbd081c6850772f09
43056f4881a3f655cee6084dc9a477fa5eecf365
2196 F20101118_AACCLV painter_k_Page_009.txt
211ec8f9e896f7bffd46893e57ba4694
644b8a8c50265e73abefcbc072505aca4ca30425
1051980 F20101118_AACCMK painter_k_Page_079.jp2
725a0afe8ba6f609a77f46c9b9e296e3
1340d2774072026ffaa185a9b44bcfeadab830a1
17561 F20101118_AACCML painter_k_Page_090.QC.jpg
68f420efe12706a7e4cc792fae810a33
6c4d376d048f73d945757a9799a2c452de360722
32388 F20101118_AACCLW painter_k_Page_069.pro
2842a03fb39e9015e5c3e8f76dadc967
76e601b9d2651bf999af26f1407c52c99ff32a9c
31798 F20101118_AACCMM painter_k_Page_080.pro
6b33bd65aa89e2a6ded5691c3a0ff8cc
993d139e4303d6d378a9f867fd070367642eb610
F20101118_AACCLX painter_k_Page_060.tif
c178e38e1ec64ed7238491a5fd0db091
feda7295e0108748aedcb5ee89c52b5aa84e889d
63825 F20101118_AACCNA painter_k_Page_048.jpg
306a64ab3ed42b9b0fef47bcb3a115d0
0503ccf290d480317567e35e124c87ead545c5a9
22931 F20101118_AACCMN painter_k_Page_020.QC.jpg
4166f29d6d408824a1723ad9c8423411
5bf0c80b7f9f4d2f0d9b84e41fe0e9d82ad610e1
23598 F20101118_AACCLY painter_k_Page_060.QC.jpg
fed7b1a05d0e06c503c8aff5b14f9f17
717f2fb14e574d8970632f68e47266797b24bf9a
1051979 F20101118_AACCNB painter_k_Page_005.jp2
333d222954a670c8dee663ee053654f6
0e52d56f3e91a734857119a587298e6d22de90e1
47267 F20101118_AACCMO painter_k_Page_082.pro
91e6c314ab6dadf7151f54e48e2f53ec
32252b25f5e08d607511b93d1eae996ac239438d
1526 F20101118_AACCLZ painter_k_Page_065.txt
60dd6bc611f7658a774cdd0c95950f61
e7d06523b8c73b7dc3680403b2ab229eeeab9713
44610 F20101118_AACCNC painter_k_Page_018.pro
e72ca3c5d8072709cefdcd59dfa91442
4e1a6e4f5ffe6d88605f5afb6c2c3f967c525f31
F20101118_AACCMP painter_k_Page_100.tif
f4780b00294a7b12e0d5ae6b20fe7c71
250fc3f496eee85b0a690868cd11113c6d2fd299
6806 F20101118_AACCND painter_k_Page_108thm.jpg
3681734b95ec54cae4e6895ad7ac864d
59dfe09017b0c04659def222b74e316c999a7039
1755 F20101118_AACCMQ painter_k_Page_064.txt
4238583ff66d34bcad3de578f6f53fe7
c2af5d84e32e3bb89c449482828d9754942be4b6
13212 F20101118_AACCNE painter_k_Page_088.QC.jpg
d066fdd81715a8c818b7103216835864
0dac982a6db5e7043afcba595447e260cb5e95f9
15435 F20101118_AACCMR painter_k_Page_007.jpg
c2b1c5a5627270e675174b0ed89dbc4d
287ba68a93deef16e116934db9373fe8d059a630
777936 F20101118_AACCNF painter_k_Page_088.jp2
43abe5d0204abae289b805e8502b4945
6a8720cd14daa5624182db2c55e81369ba1883ba
112033 F20101118_AACCMS painter_k_Page_102.jp2
d09c8ae71b72b5adca4316176be332af
2695019b4c800a11c63524a8288d793ba695bbe4
107705 F20101118_AACCNG painter_k_Page_021.jp2
872bf305a7820038ebed7f88b4480c79
0cf6110f4cb29bb9fce70da92895c28e08891f9c
18524 F20101118_AACCMT painter_k_Page_046.QC.jpg
6a4faa0f8f1da049c74753847d41fb5f
530b6c7ae78ca2fba495545460dbeae4b6a4d6e5
6437 F20101118_AACCNH painter_k_Page_074thm.jpg
93a127fdda003b5180024ee3c2a16cbd
8a16d35b3fa78b6df1262d0cff2248180aa2279b
6454 F20101118_AACCMU painter_k_Page_021thm.jpg
ebfa72f24d64ddb7439d2cf927589ad3
415c2e383cff6657c7859e7b89922d466630eb15
1741 F20101118_AACCNI painter_k_Page_013.txt
e5fdbaf9631b887c6f753aae8595f48f
4e5d50498818287f475485d2e7b9f68cb8a6ea10
6342 F20101118_AACCMV painter_k_Page_051thm.jpg
4457b2d3dc4d6897b386496ab7b914fb
e7d255c270a38c5649bada3f07e665324bc15837
F20101118_AACCNJ painter_k_Page_053.tif
cd6229f3ea782d6423e3aaa1124c491a
b282708484f8728b1034276890234a7adeb1367d
28331 F20101118_AACCMW painter_k_Page_106.QC.jpg
5398c465e9fe7bddd8deb90df73c8f5a
2ed0dfafd75cc6fad1d7176bf3761071a29cac65
2017 F20101118_AACCNK painter_k_Page_097.txt
dd6384f03f497cb25efdf1d2b2710947
115714875bf912de475f849681566e2e351647b6
1807 F20101118_AACCNL painter_k_Page_035.txt
3e550c17486e8d9d8e8cb7fb80c0208c
b0c512b60499fa01e581231af37c94dd880c5553
4336 F20101118_AACCMX painter_k_Page_006.txt
6c30c6f46ba8e2c07f8b41846675ee6f
a38c9ad931b927a53dcb944c40e064fe5803ac8d
6064 F20101118_AACCOA painter_k_Page_073thm.jpg
99fffcec1bee03871f1ff25b8926e53b
9a36e38d1610fa5a0a93b68a76affa8647e0e622
88496 F20101118_AACCNM painter_k_Page_036.jp2
87552f605091e4743a182d66e9902ed9
2ed009a764fa59030911eb48246dd53f709d7947
771575 F20101118_AACCMY painter_k_Page_038.jp2
e218443d754879bc7e45230cc6ae15e2
b55c57ffb408b2d808050042f107c9d0509ea7f8
1314 F20101118_AACCOB painter_k_Page_084.txt
12c9bd26ebbbcc2449d9b595da55b500
7a7b93d053ac92c672ff015259051fa15f14e032
43252 F20101118_AACCNN painter_k_Page_098.pro
6659e90248350e93f9723c28869b754d
9ce612e870aba0de37e3116e1bfd07a81c161fcb
67980 F20101118_AACCMZ painter_k_Page_059.jpg
30c65d8722d65e0740acaf3377099933
b698b9e2e9cbb465ff4d466241844b09f4345797
112825 F20101118_AACCOC painter_k_Page_100.jp2
87b877471a24cdac2deefc2251e87f8d
9947e4a4e7cd21a83d77fb979d6878e24b07671b
5838 F20101118_AACCNO painter_k_Page_044thm.jpg
7eb9a7c2fcfcae855cdfc9ef934e47c1
cc3c3f1e103d869416136a429838101323e2b2c1
F20101118_AACCOD painter_k_Page_094.tif
a37476dc2d6cc44e5075c8e360dc65d7
a59837a2213b6d0403ac96273f4da3d82acd57ce
6035 F20101118_AACCNP painter_k_Page_086thm.jpg
2f75e50563b1c14b4755b11fd85f0225
2d3c5dfba01496f3274013ce6fd7f3aca1b3c19f
11755 F20101118_AACCOE painter_k_Page_092.pro
960a746c8574a1c96540b6ebd1aaf625
70fe19c6ad73014fda118114e1352ebc7e1e5649
5429 F20101118_AACCNQ painter_k_Page_009thm.jpg
a820ffbccbfd1834575afd68eeb41d95
242aebea31e234b550a0538fcc78b33f7fbc0aa2
1744 F20101118_AACCOF painter_k_Page_033.txt
7b04243c2875cfb93e6e505c68b70ac8
e659cc85169af531f1282297c5b62d10baafe3cb
20552 F20101118_AACCNR painter_k_Page_033.QC.jpg
0bf643259c7439932008faadf6727938
2fc7e3a1313add50b3fcb5dbcf630f6b47a8d69a
23909 F20101118_AACCOG painter_k_Page_076.QC.jpg
de371246157cedc2ce3586eda9e4cbf8
035c537e4d6bbfe089b8b07aedd5a6f6ef0e25b3
1054428 F20101118_AACCNS painter_k_Page_041.tif
5b2cb15ed1ed14ec9b92ca3f3b637038
a31a46172442e06a1b72eb800442279c9b995392
50598 F20101118_AACCOH painter_k_Page_055.pro
ca09a7daf560c7e24e73235ee5a6296a
82db6d9ba24cd9e3bff5d9cb713f801b4b3ffc9a
6436 F20101118_AACCNT painter_k_Page_101thm.jpg
f4807e1b141b3cd7ae36c321107a71c8
56680c86fea02b9adba3031a9bbdc9615f8498ad
19857 F20101118_AACCOI painter_k_Page_064.QC.jpg
345a3fdd921b5b1d3574675d57ab1f6b
ee655049b17569bfb38e05a977bce6181a513141
40585 F20101118_AACCNU painter_k_Page_004.jpg
dd24d89d3e0ab57d5aeef3a3acbfc859
9d5bb3a8b79ac2e2c58d2d470e22d83fdf3dfb04
49447 F20101118_AACCOJ painter_k_Page_025.pro
08fef41898e091001248c19e55146a94
d4a4a61480903646936b8a764fc720b3f51f77ee
23323 F20101118_AACCNV painter_k_Page_094.QC.jpg
1bfc4114b922f023676cb85d71621636
6c82cc65fb75f032408bbb4a7b54fc3016fa733f
51776 F20101118_AACCOK painter_k_Page_102.pro
dbdd42ff333a201b80e09a2703ddd2eb
a2e0ceff46d04736f7acf9ad73f0af890f70f39c
104053 F20101118_AACCNW painter_k_Page_053.jp2
0aea31fbb89a20ce973e808268de35de
6c97380ad9aecc8574a8d23590b0c9d28b01b3f1
45498 F20101118_AACCOL painter_k_Page_083.pro
d1bdc18aba2a262e417974d9e10463e1
446c442ae198937381d4b3cac7c41416129ee9d7
40529 F20101118_AACCNX painter_k_Page_003.pro
a7c66b6e7fb2311e1000b1f2bd633bc2
c0ff9b829478a80757223ee096d54af50cad393f
1852 F20101118_AACCPA painter_k_Page_059.txt
31ea215343167d6505364b65f118c736
195c065920f84a23e6a5a9105b7caf735584e391
106494 F20101118_AACCOM painter_k_Page_054.jp2
56977a3f4e24c0563d8d716dde918ff9
b8d08bbde0039c255cea9ccc0bf2d5d79fc11e52
826907 F20101118_AACCPB painter_k_Page_069.jp2
615be3b3ad0f043e97fa2a8bd2c857d6
653a5a01793d40945749e631ae4c503878acaf15
106921 F20101118_AACCON painter_k_Page_099.jp2
d055c8c2370e3e37d87d5ac550e91247
4e802bf10868f5795bedbfc12184549bc7e3437d
91292 F20101118_AACCNY painter_k_Page_057.jp2
6899dc8ae871e4316570b7e2323d1e10
ea6f5fde274bcfb84caebbde381464e65ea8df34
71025 F20101118_AACCPC painter_k_Page_094.jpg
6e630660083a36906a613a7205bbf5df
df995f4636d754275c1957d647ba2cac4e5ba080
6586 F20101118_AACCOO painter_k_Page_060thm.jpg
866dc239955ed3eecda796656dc229d0
dff22f2339520ab9400d7d4280b376bde8e5deb5
66850 F20101118_AACCNZ painter_k_Page_018.jpg
b375775d2355935663bed712e9b8fe08
94fdf312667c0eefda8b5fcd1a784613a897b60f
F20101118_AACCPD painter_k_Page_046.tif
11dca72f9d5126fc9dd34bc1339335a0
a441be4465bd093bb069d5db46628a9a65bcfadb
6009 F20101118_AACCOP painter_k_Page_019thm.jpg
04e44d3d5dd1d6d61614ed799e755006
ebfe0afbf238af87c5e75bb0e6fb3e3c7dfcf225
F20101118_AACCPE painter_k_Page_066.tif
07be82a08494762b9ddd7f00a01e1a36
3620654f57c4cf155f66a68407522de867927840
10389 F20101118_AACCOQ painter_k_Page_067.pro
e79550d586a6bfd2091b6bece41d975c
e1807e8d83a1516ba471273341b0f9b5d58ee666
221452 F20101118_AACCPF painter_k_Page_007.jp2
7b2acd26b4dbbc8256c3246aefffc6e8
c94c9a6c0970d33011e0431403ff9b2b1c3941f5
14171 F20101118_AACCOR painter_k_Page_042.pro
40f336fa9e7c3e28c7917ca34655d0fe
85bc88a8bee395cbc75a97fc1700392558d96191
1459 F20101118_AACCPG painter_k_Page_046.txt
06624ea51789fd3167be6857f5572e69
6acacea0fedb3f509d4f404c4f0622bfbcc86776
91617 F20101118_AACCOS painter_k_Page_034.jp2
0bc85c405e02d47d4181aed09ddb4ffc
d7524dcf0e41d606c76b3e591ea2728f394d0f27
1889 F20101118_AACCPH painter_k_Page_029.txt
ed5858c48caab00c8f2da7787d5cdd50
b42a1c32418618594fda1378898f9236845d63dc
10006 F20101118_AACCOT painter_k_Page_001.pro
dab6b907bbb0cd8625e2a55a3114dc9a
12b9a546f024b399d42b62791cac340ed569fd64
47912 F20101118_AACCPI painter_k_Page_053.pro
fb0521256322203dd64a78b87084136b
64e9a41e83a9a976dff55e07b198532fbd9cd792
29567 F20101118_AACCOU painter_k_Page_042.jp2
abe8955beffe61427a0c0eacb0de005a
9b2ab2004bdbc907762cf7b62e96829561739bb8
6505 F20101118_AACCPJ painter_k_Page_102thm.jpg
700bbd1bb67fc448e7403855bc286ddc
0e03ed3b4716665851ec6037dd07636c151f5cd8
1962 F20101118_AACCOV painter_k_Page_095.txt
e4d17aa6ce60a989bc840412750ca6f6
33b0d1154c9673245bff780336b5d2523dcdd927
24092 F20101118_AACCPK painter_k_Page_052.QC.jpg
86ffdc99f697fe1a55f6054e67c6ba08
bc3e924060fc512778bb192da26d7251c4105a69
1972 F20101118_AACCOW painter_k_Page_060.txt
f6b5e68df22d828b615205a48ddb2b9c
f7a854c428428f5a6b72d1608cda30cb990e1367
52640 F20101118_AACCPL painter_k_Page_072.jpg
df2a30f2d2838ca4034e0362d149757f
a371c43dde0e36b312abeda67348a8fb97c24708
64960 F20101118_AACCOX painter_k_Page_080.jpg
eb21c87528c7a4b1c1bb957db3539459
18a5f65de75d2ca6565799359e08f90b9dae61d4
1433 F20101118_AACCPM painter_k_Page_072.txt
8b5c11b68c4050cbf6acdd99cf3a89f7
dfda1a629f77dd6748126327cea9f285dd34ba48
1879 F20101118_AACCOY painter_k_Page_042thm.jpg
5b733286a5963885f9af45668c1b21c1
adf87f44a98539814c36217339e3565032fed466
6463 F20101118_AACCQA painter_k_Page_054thm.jpg
f77be47153d74d3c3d6f82d5ee369462
8320f4e711ff605e7e4577d23b8021f6232388fe
45146 F20101118_AACCPN painter_k_Page_089.jpg
5762e6ec4cc469c3ad2e5c1b3545bcc6
78a6b1958008f34339cbac19b0d4de1286eb0822
25463 F20101118_AACCQB painter_k_Page_061.QC.jpg
e7de1024bcf520f7deed8bdeda224700
b1837643999409d1af5b7f80ad605b85fb68a21a
23358 F20101118_AACCPO painter_k_Page_081.QC.jpg
73dea1b85473c4b2e8580582f94435d9
880b06f7b5fd22446543d7d53f8aa34a6faff56e
2037 F20101118_AACCOZ painter_k_Page_102.txt
0ccdfc958cec6640042d4ba143597e4d
b447bf296c49d8c7ec7dfd7aa074a9cf9fbdb303
F20101118_AACCQC painter_k_Page_108.tif
40bce9483a2ce6c16a4f3a1dfec9552c
d38f2c3724efa4b161e2536e12cb23d3457fa179
F20101118_AACCQD painter_k_Page_083.tif
bb7c20c639b8d7363214e4d4796b764a
6bf5be0978dde61c5e8efd4e89d30040d22b9250
49866 F20101118_AACCPP painter_k_Page_094.pro
c3842bc3e538d43d98dd00bbf3f351fe
234a0501d295734f4c9c73aad682896bb704605a
23062 F20101118_AACCQE painter_k_Page_101.QC.jpg
eb02847ffe35df971a4896d768736acd
edc3f40cd201fa885d419d340410c70b74e94df5
F20101118_AACCPQ painter_k_Page_008.tif
b1bc595074282cf055d40f7ea874835c
9a6dbba6facb094bbb11596afd2f27feafa2a447
66716 F20101118_AACCQF painter_k_Page_083.jpg
c10ba3281f3cc4c386ee1e38aee73f4b
16f1c1530df9c5205e72867c97479eaa735aa225
2246 F20101118_AACCPR painter_k_Page_044.txt
eff24a72faf1a33f379b0d2f0a9b664e
7ab3652758cbbd3271e58aeea0ba56d97f8c5c94
2025 F20101118_AACCQG painter_k_Page_014.txt
f78c63888702a6690c1a059db56dd844
d138e14b7d7c72a3e52dfe4925eff22a3a65c2fb
55039 F20101118_AACCPS painter_k_Page_015.jpg
45ca9c000032f5eb2d7e2f96ac73477a
5a9d84ad591dfcbbd37aa6cc7bd750178f449771
2474 F20101118_AACCQH painter_k_Page_043.txt
a5d9910b6825a09e25ec000c9e3593a0
d6b0f7bf5ea9061f0ed2dc92b0156b787de27a3e
46087 F20101118_AACCPT painter_k_Page_023.pro
a97a8facc3ba973cc83112801386db0b
c89d9825b87d37aff614d46b4e21c56f5111dcbe
547536 F20101118_AACCQI painter_k_Page_092.jp2
b83280003fd9fe73e2f3cbaae23fc1aa
86329db60cb9a88fa4a7c02f457630fcd3aeeb88
F20101118_AACCPU painter_k_Page_023.tif
17afb0e015e97468df202a40fff99830
99fe0c787b373a46a04342d1b503662ac29ec1c3
23202 F20101118_AACCQJ painter_k_Page_049.QC.jpg
84c960e11f33682a2ad2b4af739dec65
503a68d6ce11d37bde766a1e28e7f8af03a813f2
1967 F20101118_AACCPV painter_k_Page_054.txt
01b4368003949d9b49c698c6c4ec825d
797dbdac0a8069a51e910d0a16fa5d1742234e0a
19988 F20101118_AACCQK painter_k_Page_044.QC.jpg
290a378f2b14e68716518fff0519c043
79086ba8f024984a4161b4ec2e15fa0a5b777ad5
43822 F20101118_AACCPW painter_k_Page_013.pro
146ae11799b2a0375eb277a2745793d3
b7a2df149d3e26e8004fa196eda85fe824fe99e1
22340 F20101118_AACCQL painter_k_Page_071.QC.jpg
7da652bc4121149589ddc5a0266efc74
caf85f334305bbfa577d6e30bb5b482537e58c07
31164 F20101118_AACCPX painter_k_Page_065.pro
230896fe5e28202671e35b269e0dd7fe
ae74bb5bdd69369f81b5282b40f3501e1ec3b1b9
64443 F20101118_AACCRA painter_k_Page_108.pro
4ece57cd8b76a65e47648a8f335b49ed
b9e0c5c15bdb7c6bd483723da7d9ffdb4c364124
4075 F20101118_AACCQM painter_k_Page_004thm.jpg
fea1792bb3df9eca88945b692ed179c5
748dbb143dcc6a65f721482cf62ceccad116bf9b
9757 F20101118_AACCPY painter_k_Page_008.QC.jpg
a185e4682c82db988113db0e010de6cf
cdf1b38eacff4c3682d145184a34f3dcd5813d82
114007 F20101118_AACCRB painter_k_Page_052.jp2
f84e31d85ca63f14765047f0627547a9
f91956f2c72e4e0b1c08c4863e47320c48e36b90
82998 F20101118_AACCQN painter_k_Page_043.jp2
bb216300a26e18e98348760c4e8aa77e
297fc6a0f230f59f917bd12fc00d14f9e9fd0f00
5655 F20101118_AACCPZ painter_k_Page_064thm.jpg
3e6e23e6b96da06f75b30f16cdfc805a
d79b4102b54d83554486a63880ba8ef753db1989
21868 F20101118_AACCRC painter_k_Page_083.QC.jpg
ed896f6b5dc7df95c6265f1db9bc0abe
8c49d0506f06e8c29bedcbec32ba8c8b6f54fd9d
867207 F20101118_AACCQO painter_k_Page_089.jp2
0a90ed21ed6ba8e62c559121abc335aa
b6b76cb8d57b5efe7ce72523290b18b504facbb5
1937 F20101118_AACCRD painter_k_Page_020.txt
ccf725aaf0c856dc637e4fd4d16f7649
d84dfac87837ca12189b96cf61db09b374a031b6
1672 F20101118_AACCQP painter_k_Page_027.txt
30fe002bbb6a441836e17d7676d10a5b
3c11f5de08460257ebfefee3b45a9f140feb2109
18935 F20101118_AACCRE painter_k_Page_010.QC.jpg
56728b39310b85e36cd2d12f41827d40
23be7440efa67c3b7a1c91e28a9ba0d32c094429
37708 F20101118_AACCQQ painter_k_Page_066.jpg
9295954f4fbf5dea45183579e96aed6d
3fe1bdb01a75734548d342fcfd63603bd2e3ee7a
2607 F20101118_AACCRF painter_k_Page_108.txt
3a8e549f749c4ba2c11d3e764a8f7abc
8140e793715348ac410f60da26666becb5f717f1
755220 F20101118_AACCQR painter_k_Page_008.jp2
c4b4fa121bc679ac7e372500310fecdb
4d70afef08fc0b29f678a2cdf70672c46422841f
34092 F20101118_AACCRG painter_k_Page_079.pro
ab45d0d9e1c32673de2dc5353c676701
d5ce3e684d9e410193dc41e0241b4172e5618472
1051982 F20101118_AACCQS painter_k_Page_009.jp2
f11601806e2be90bac3fd1e2baca2a4a
bda6c707501b77a39bd85dca5a7daf4ea5b86d06
2680 F20101118_AACCRH painter_k_Page_106.txt
4c9fad42fb1f13b634b6da920c9e8bff
aeefe4d7ef4a71a41e7aad5387199cfcc02f1105
F20101118_AACCQT painter_k_Page_087.tif
e0477d30098b28266f232c75fb02b3ad
c3cdd2ee834072ca55356c7fe7f1e490dbfcab50
5334 F20101118_AACCRI painter_k_Page_010thm.jpg
f08cb563d3c935af879d16fad90b329e
f23419653ffb0d9e70894698e427b476d5beacca
15902 F20101118_AACCQU painter_k_Page_091.QC.jpg
312fc90aa7999c6349c0730578133b2d
2924876a73d1e7df50a56a171592c1552d6170e4
67160 F20101118_AACCRJ painter_k_Page_023.jpg
1e5644d38aca17f38e625aab86d08df1
0ef1229051b7599c0db6094aa245bb60b3caa56a
5200 F20101118_AACCQV painter_k_Page_056.QC.jpg
d8732591286b405e4780b0763901edb7
5aff53702019b2c06cd847c5b636f59a1c83e595
1946 F20101118_AACCRK painter_k_Page_021.txt
dfd82452fb3d0f20b88106e1fe218ac4
65ad864b00b2a0019ed458ca247f32415e95f068
F20101118_AACCQW painter_k_Page_051.tif
fff013183f5c1bdc5a93c3003c312b41
9f4de8bcfefc7e7c7555766e99ac046362e2fd2c
66166 F20101118_AACCRL painter_k_Page_106.pro
ca2356a70df74e20b098be8e11463ac9
1052b3ef9616cae85bd7f032063895e4043b8383
1998 F20101118_AACCQX painter_k_Page_055.txt
541f6b7ce97450e85d0c6c8d0cf3d33a
575bbae1426e8fa971a2c2f615016b5d34c77ec4
53872 F20101118_AACCRM painter_k_Page_090.jpg
0bfa745deed5a90d2a9641ebf6e09c4e
4442bbcbdccb0d0b5dcd767a311e773bc9c9c89f
F20101118_AACCQY painter_k_Page_099.tif
253aff9323345cce77dd08b196ae124e
adb468bc1d6822490e0749c6544b7350dd5733c2
103991 F20101118_AACCSA painter_k_Page_022.jp2
045f0807a07333c49c992e3ef871ab98
706fccf06965a05dc66a68658db0cac7dea8acc7
16181 F20101118_AACCRN painter_k_Page_087.QC.jpg
fefbe9eb2beafd3e38af98d6d419d1e3
ce5b361a4079b9b5c1f6f046449078bf71e993d2
6939 F20101118_AACCQZ painter_k_Page_103.QC.jpg
7c0e30e5abe10d884ecde170be8977bf
926fcb3713ad2f07099b9ac94c77dfa7fd2969d1
17685 F20101118_AACCSB painter_k_Page_015.QC.jpg
764b8ca6b9db06fd0275be1602957c64
7e00f8ab0f0552bd35508a1041544db162a68e0c
71960 F20101118_AACCRO painter_k_Page_055.jpg
1d02b91d7fc7933bb6667ba49fa34a83
da68c85cc0a1fa5da4fc81196a21a8865cdede39
6565 F20101118_AACCSC painter_k_Page_085thm.jpg
5f7dcd6cd02f021ac7bd5420e7121733
1b686df9bfa41d678bd117e294ec17329618c9d8
F20101118_AACCRP painter_k_Page_034.tif
6c58f3ddd46b5bfdfce5dde58106a5d0
ec929d276bd3d2a6a5b0da9e3ca9d53b636999da
30015 F20101118_AACCSD painter_k_Page_110.jpg
e28608e2de1b45306b61e8584c747cb2
a62ee0b96d8d271fee2cfb98e51039dc93dc71e4
4555 F20101118_AACCRQ painter_k_Page_007.QC.jpg
fa8b02350379f75930b62020aa1078fb
2fbb006fa77b63d905753d973148438379d252d2
2520 F20101118_AACCSE painter_k_Page_041.txt
d63198f414dc46a897a8ffac8e400650
bc04bdd59d9bbacd74c7cfe469279bf1dd372ece
23352 F20101118_AACCRR painter_k_Page_014.QC.jpg
ef061ca0d63a2a3e368bcd43baf37c29
6c5b56072bc8591ba505d5e0b55a11f1b71c5d12
102856 F20101118_AACCSF painter_k_Page_086.jp2
9d9885e3d339fc5c4ac0a3e6d8ae2455
99c5f7815598b8c0f2f3a1fe3ba02a3ef8b54c50
68518 F20101118_AACCRS painter_k_Page_022.jpg
7e8695d149defc3a0417489d4844471a
562806b1c78f4c34d0a5e9211782cce9d6cbd632
F20101118_AACCSG painter_k_Page_059.tif
0a8c299bae019ee57d3737d354b03814
7ea324d7a391a5e2d91a6202db28a9a523ddfddb
89114 F20101118_AACCRT painter_k_Page_003.jp2
387bf7c14c4cd0c952c520f6f2d04a62
729f7fb81b6146f79bdd12a70463855f669d7e7a
F20101118_AACCSH painter_k_Page_092.tif
40b271b741d24d8255c258e4a7a5da54
d123cc5fc3556793ebb61f2035376cd1d7c0a2f1
70218 F20101118_AACCRU painter_k_Page_021.jpg
fa783257f99dda1df3e163bdc39defde
feb694a0b06272c77506464ed2b063f78940703d
21953 F20101118_AACCSI painter_k_Page_082.QC.jpg
475969b480c2128bcade6be10eac8b0c
63f9dd4aaa7b7fcb06b95e2271976ba77a8e00fc
110104 F20101118_AACCRV painter_k_Page_081.jp2
69e8db760dfb0c2603361038eb77c0df
03f78a62204ff40aa5af6238b8bab8c9a6a8dbf7
113257 F20101118_AACCSJ painter_k_Page_096.jp2
7925575f8f21124a396ceb7e55c6474e
32fd465b555b516f95f110d2b877c0b1535769fd
4093 F20101118_AACCRW painter_k_Page_037thm.jpg
f14d91df6ef68507086111292f9689c4
46cbc5e38f678bba19b218a04e2cd5d5e514bdda
5067 F20101118_AACCSK painter_k_Page_042.QC.jpg
75c50be24375c35f9c38f0d642a88304
31ba220c8ec3c14c217b614cae6e4a0938e88337
F20101118_AACCRX painter_k_Page_063.tif
1e55522bc66c5eae40b55b2310ce0799
b2ef4503365196dab4e3b33fc210a05489c47abb
61723 F20101118_AACCSL painter_k_Page_057.jpg
e2ea5cac2c8eb500af9f9f9f30b702d7
bc6d7878c0456a9f6ed519d6baf4c4c33b30bce2
98757 F20101118_AACCRY painter_k_Page_040.jp2
c6e92e859afabcc2a50b64f3a7a1f70a
2c17c2e14993472d93d353d395fce713432a056d
75355 F20101118_AACCTA painter_k_Page_076.jpg
565af7b46ba25b48b71cfa0091c84791
0ab83320cc675007ed6713894e2b2eb542a8ced1
103315 F20101118_AACCSM painter_k_Page_026.jp2
16e18ace2beba405ef5ab0ff66794347
a75fb8163570e15787ea6ccd711f1aea9474081b
6419 F20101118_AACCRZ painter_k_Page_095thm.jpg
3b6a8712ce8df38e56c978a7eec631a5
46037c22d4889aa25dc02f6478a67eaca9363956
388 F20101118_AACCTB painter_k_Page_007.txt
1c996c8506e4bff8e297050578892929
f63964ba540017d64ae1a13f233f6b37a7c3bdde
1804 F20101118_AACCSN painter_k_Page_083.txt
3e3bd1fcff2f82c2ddd5f9c86238fd63
dae09cfc318936d3be0ab12ab391f4efc30dac1c
F20101118_AACCTC painter_k_Page_088.tif
3bcf7a3850ac7a55ade077f5d4f22500
1df509ae114cf1848ee9f7c90a61820562276ac9
F20101118_AACCSO painter_k_Page_097.tif
ae10e5f327f309aa09283882d2cb77d9
2c80b93841d86425ad97ffd0783b71c804c4996a
14048 F20101118_AACCTD painter_k_Page_047.QC.jpg
e5fedf15611d4b6248e9ba98accc8675
f0015f77de7ecae629d57795ea8ee94b93cc05c7
68698 F20101118_AACCSP painter_k_Page_071.jpg
9e565d0fa97fec8dda816899cc013c1d
e7718ccb99c27bdda9b00667361808d1fdfff327
95812 F20101118_AACCTE painter_k_Page_035.jp2
42c423fec104940b3079f5b9d54445ae
60223358651a26091e2a4d8bd9f30004dab04425
43384 F20101118_AACCSQ painter_k_Page_047.jpg
69d835af1453226d228a62afa2dfc025
76ac58b0abeb0e77da52d0fad91d50c596e0daeb
22995 F20101118_AACCTF painter_k_Page_021.QC.jpg
0e0359d5c51586de071e8b0c8a41bfdf
3ca3f7260c67470b3ad5848c9d76b26e3ff0c9fe
38759 F20101118_AACCSR painter_k_Page_037.pro
11855b3304fdf7b5dba40572ecb6b8b4
b02a9df7c8f95b6e33fec06cad44da3942097f24
1655 F20101118_AACCTG painter_k_Page_003.txt
170e9ca4ab0837fcde53847a559209c7
4b16843ff8d5c071e3a5082032ffab51ec059fa8
5698 F20101118_AACCSS painter_k_Page_027thm.jpg
104de4fe915fe93ed9ae55011352ff2f
5037573f230bca863a42c53071af31cc917dade1
5817 F20101118_AACCTH painter_k_Page_002.jp2
78fd58f6440fe542c63cef82c4ce59f2
da8fbc964600651e0c0797f4aeda65c11e5fcacf
F20101118_AACCST painter_k_Page_031.tif
4dae82db11834efae2167c78d566dc35
261bd1501c51b1da17a0bd147a1c6e94aabd5af6
1815 F20101118_AACCTI painter_k_Page_017.txt
6575f74961beb3a544e7e42f631ad925
cbe36c2323163ee8682d236a4802c4c73091d1d5
94483 F20101118_AACCSU painter_k_Page_044.jp2
2613b5689c8e5171a51e8f511c6d6146
058b179eccd5e06407faaf96a69fae047a005341
F20101118_AACCTJ painter_k_Page_057.tif
189a6c7ada335444ac4c21bb98094e8a
cd09de828a55dd7770e84cf16d20796cdb40ccc3
5205 F20101118_AACCSV painter_k_Page_109thm.jpg
ad05c7819c4acf4f9bd43242885b4fc7
9b4d8e127b91a55b23445a0bdfd148f630d5bdd0
22552 F20101118_AACCTK painter_k_Page_032.QC.jpg
d30c593560839e77668a9001f84767ea
ca7925c8cfc286c110ff143f5169d8be1c857e3b
2184 F20101118_AACCSW painter_k_Page_066.txt
295d9cf7facd74c7d63958191a9424b9
d6dab7312b778367303978335c6faf9271b75af0
43843 F20101118_AACCTL painter_k_Page_033.pro
f981a166fd0f3defd07d6850a0d73db0
492ee80754ced497d4317a9fe022ac4b571ff369
1984 F20101118_AACCSX painter_k_Page_050.txt
7269eee3a2bef6f3d4350c0a8c7112fe
6207a98d1456341015d033d04dee82ab1cbcc290
16269 F20101118_AACCUA painter_k_Page_042.jpg
eb3760deb32df879fe93aff1354e30f3
e25f7025c66ab85667b2c2306ceb4c9b9d2477bd
4548 F20101118_AACCTM painter_k_Page_047thm.jpg
6cbe68684519f06866403ebc16676f51
99419e8fb26534162bdf53d15a4937dd76f12633
13673 F20101118_AACCSY painter_k_Page_067.jpg
001981243019fcf89807872f072c3e89
6e2761b685064bc99c04dba9af8aa32795effad9
23623 F20101118_AACCUB painter_k_Page_085.QC.jpg
dad7e2002911916e4dbb08fcd12fb45a
c1c9467ab0036946944b9a6368bf908f12272452
21132 F20101118_AACCTN painter_k_Page_018.QC.jpg
8384c01201ff3ce197a98091ee302abf
5b3f104009345802c3ac24cc96d2f503d6eca5bc
F20101118_AACCSZ painter_k_Page_043.tif
ed293eb3c66bd9a8df81d156f939eedb
1598bc59f630e48f120de511830aa71a76c80827
41940 F20101118_AACCUC painter_k_Page_027.pro
52ccd57d81e259cf7f9d829a13305163
5a86c29c0b9762d1ad8f500f5255c0298cbd158e
43812 F20101118_AACCTO painter_k_Page_035.pro
305c591981f10295b54be376d2ae09b4
f350c88a8c0f0a1441dc714b195417c0888e906d
22950 F20101118_AACCUD painter_k_Page_025.QC.jpg
0c456b75f97a8977bf152214d4181a4d
d8c6c21f7915a4734b90d708fc6f63a0223da93c
995 F20101118_AACCTP painter_k_Page_008.txt
3300d8e9bb7d3e0cc0f95740503f47ed
95f2b3649b99cc2fb16a13f83ca9e0930af1b552
2061 F20101118_AACCUE painter_k_Page_076.txt
a0cee08fca938143e55334f2e6390011
498228fd91eda6f61e95fc8fa8c79f6415922a46
677 F20101118_AACCTQ painter_k_Page_042.txt
b886d0a685ad8019d9d65d1c7e135d46
1f6c06c4145ca5c339e86fb224aa781ff5b7df3b
1843 F20101118_AACCUF painter_k_Page_086.txt
cdb1cb58f5c0e4ed64d4f91f224c907f
0f9275d9588659d3695181986d1c2959d808ffe7
18149 F20101118_AACCTR painter_k_Page_038.QC.jpg
2c13cb75e557adf7118e202cf33a5513
010a836467cfa2f31bb07724a74b54d95c0cc573
2962 F20101118_AACCUG painter_k_Page_039.txt
32343aed897f254cdc3fa548d09af63e
eb8b099873205b3c0e6a85a411d4a90ffea8d0ae
45013 F20101118_AACCTS painter_k_Page_019.pro
c3880dd570a18d5109af1842f0c60cc6
7922ee7f5da268454df41f0f75dbe8edd94cb97d
60658 F20101118_AACCUH painter_k_Page_003.jpg
dc969bbc4325b4cfcc2ba72639f88e2d
117af84b363227cfe500b532ada64426d1eb8561
6409 F20101118_AACCTT painter_k_Page_063thm.jpg
914d1c6880cbc785fb041effa7c6bfb4
9b43c87ca86492747ac4c49121da5b7fd779aeea
27091 F20101118_AACDAC painter_k_Page_001.jpg
f92e230914a0bb4ed57c700f57eb7b15
26331f0bef2d266350ab110094f9a9ca48b615ba
12072 F20101118_AACCUI painter_k_Page_041.QC.jpg
5f60511e91d04b84cc15252be1523209
556b2882c04bab746ec73688fae5cd5bc36dd964
F20101118_AACCTU painter_k_Page_028.tif
8349c53f24543a1ff63329c04f7432e0
d0d50305a835e92db6da9caf7c981fffa3b8c4ea
10419 F20101118_AACDAD painter_k_Page_002.jpg
584daa137ee2ec7f83b8976900cfff56
14df5e492d4935010f9c87e170ed48cbf7797444
F20101118_AACCUJ painter_k_Page_061.tif
dc2f41c4e2a001530e41225cab005a37
30895a21f66dcc8136a389f24fd04894fd301d42
24345 F20101118_AACCTV painter_k_Page_096.QC.jpg
e422800b8436b7760d9d1e11a627ac9f
23d68270e4b3d4ae00c2222df5d7049d563b5649
61793 F20101118_AACDAE painter_k_Page_010.jpg
3243c41f3622146b3a11082c7afd523c
79a4df6d0d6fe67fe51f69e92da1df218ae3882e
50447 F20101118_AACCUK painter_k_Page_039.pro
b20b7f62b4cd34b6752ca1a6948e1a80
9c789410af2bc9923743d835745e5f53355e20c0
6209 F20101118_AACCTW painter_k_Page_071thm.jpg
b2503520a0602f4b3683b4fd1219f86a
d23ad1c07062ee3651257d107a97411fe55c9e18
63398 F20101118_AACDAF painter_k_Page_011.jpg
6a77d4c76afc738a5461c513e046ac58
99463e763d2e7b03c287ffb820aa36bf0c667cc4
70028 F20101118_AACCUL painter_k_Page_050.jpg
3fe70e4ec2ad538f9fd71f9e4a9bf1d3
1b73815eb233b3ab5a5d4d83a76e6bc382f0d0cc
1880 F20101118_AACCTX painter_k_Page_032.txt
f182313a3c44b1113dcf65147cd508eb
43c7226750a9a62b01dbbf20f38f93a2ac72726e
64282 F20101118_AACDAG painter_k_Page_016.jpg
9c310af1e0588ddc4b4b7c2ff8a1d323
dfa84020063b93bdaa3dc517f2f1441c0ec6c5c5
44801 F20101118_AACCTY painter_k_Page_040.pro
d825518b4a1c588b32050a5eb5fd5573
d0780526f592327a469748169f61e1fba916d4a8
66755 F20101118_AACDAH painter_k_Page_019.jpg
93eb8f47dbc0839ff4ea9819edb7da6c
0554c12289ff267827c265e9a60638a34d269138
F20101118_AACCVA painter_k_Page_029.tif
d93c5c86d5f8d7954eb9f582e30bac69
f58de9e6cc8158abe4230d2bf87658864096e364
25980 F20101118_AACCUM painter_k_Page_103.jp2
affc72c8f0f4fb526e4f43240341a471
be36dc0c596b5e9a54967401701fce7d2c4e4d4c
15270 F20101118_AACCTZ painter_k_Page_056.jp2
a1f7f2208c7c2b71bdd4951c46319d35
1f43ed6e20e7af5c6ad5b0ad0d80b52902375683
69720 F20101118_AACDAI painter_k_Page_020.jpg
da7f53f763b783d9fb181e2f04f200a0
82a7f9d423b3330b9b48c1a7168ea70fb026b2af
53564 F20101118_AACCVB painter_k_Page_084.jpg
c20adb1bfed45c7e409e8b2664ba237b
1c02db464a83eebebdd102d53a5f4bb6c8c2766f
970328 F20101118_AACCUN painter_k_Page_109.jp2
cb9c76963ffe3823b323cd6413abe7cb
db9cb5bbecd1971eb09f2bced3ce52790f9df1d8
69777 F20101118_AACDAJ painter_k_Page_024.jpg
adbe27eced84d5ec1c5fe01795f41e23
d11ce5c504da9a8a86b5b7522d385c668cf2e5d8
6450 F20101118_AACCVC painter_k_Page_094thm.jpg
758cde517dc1a10e3d42ecfc0a7875cd
bcbc867d6c36705dca7ae8acd2ced9af53a9d604
19251 F20101118_AACCUO painter_k_Page_034.QC.jpg
6384c51d1e7a8129b3d08464448beb4c
72b0b9ea98a528323c7c970195bd3868cc97b29d
1939 F20101118_AACCVD painter_k_Page_024.txt
4ba02e44dc1199553a6b1493a4b11633
c27b33887dc9f2b3f66a9d45cb2194af855b4f49
49809 F20101118_AACCUP painter_k_Page_054.pro
bcae429f4fd9b95033a9d9a6106ac6bd
55acfa5358e91b7d58a80fc748b53c99f8e20ee9
70908 F20101118_AACDAK painter_k_Page_025.jpg
df9bea259e2e867ec6bdbb78c4cb9b36
3776c38267c0199ff566e267b2f14bad75191ffc
1089 F20101118_AACCVE painter_k_Page_047.txt
adc26832f4b442d54b60df586ce0c770
9c0171e3744218c503cca5877a6f8d0d80202365
13359 F20101118_AACCUQ painter_k_Page_004.QC.jpg
e8984013eb76fceef0a2b61336775ed0
58145422b5a2271772fe2e5452eb8eec639df2b2
70099 F20101118_AACDBA painter_k_Page_058.jpg
5fe8eb6b7bd1f52df755dfb0f84565f5
ffbfc6d885d31971b87bf59ebb515d4ca9b5ddaa
102660 F20101118_AACDAL painter_k_Page_028.jpg
70413bc469e5f549ec219dd1c8b790a9
b23842f75722074fbf8eeaf8afc2752102476ad5
1822 F20101118_AACCVF painter_k_Page_023.txt
1a7e55d939154c273af15f24ebbb92d3
046126ffc5f82415a28cbc8774f697210a707872
70484 F20101118_AACCUR painter_k_Page_095.jpg
29e17129af51a305fca2189ccc157f24
410947f04c479181a005f7876ae42d9df9d55fb8
71912 F20101118_AACDBB painter_k_Page_063.jpg
c1961686fa3084262b955cab202d7636
2fab7a14f7b519efc836993ec29005027135372b
67542 F20101118_AACDAM painter_k_Page_029.jpg
59afbf28c429156efcbce9367e999cf1
ae76388cc9ccf4598a017b43c6e792429e2d1841
F20101118_AACCVG painter_k_Page_107.tif
f0ae65cb90d9cb1d6e0e516bafbefa12
3afc7165e3e1c3e472739246f7e0699c8ca3bafb
79083 F20101118_AACCUS painter_k_Page_061.jpg
2dec7e996240a47bddd16c74efeb6a6d
f38a479b36edc88d6370d497619b3ea66fddf7f5
61521 F20101118_AACDBC painter_k_Page_064.jpg
b27bc06f9c9cb5156ec1c0f4f81c53bd
cc707faa3a8a25a28754836799abc0db8b9b5f63
49017 F20101118_AACDAN painter_k_Page_030.jpg
d8da29ad06fe0ac8bea41100047bc26d
16eec38faad4146d73f8de44208f09d73930d2bf
F20101118_AACCVH painter_k_Page_082.tif
10f30f0841867f33d477f8e1755ba94b
95b7e87925b1fe6d7285a4c9d8bade5171ed6f0b
4908 F20101118_AACCUT painter_k_Page_065thm.jpg
6a088b25d0fd650809dd49f2c94d61e9
01eb8b861430f38ee3c4d1d4c34ef36d80ab3a00
60055 F20101118_AACDBD painter_k_Page_069.jpg
50fc757b4e507d25df6c51f9933d6bd5
c9de59449b930852f8c2cacbaea4d428be9edce5
67586 F20101118_AACDAO painter_k_Page_032.jpg
1bca7d7fd7992cd027c65a543c337dc1
8a77edcdd45f8fd8e7c82f5060de5523fc474349
20588 F20101118_AACCVI painter_k_Page_016.QC.jpg
4adda6b8de4a0b203a07190d4f259002
072ac6634f331f30230e42a91d7bd16f5b760575
16838 F20101118_AACCUU painter_k_Page_043.QC.jpg
3802558fac638f4557bb6695510dfb4e
0c63c002db184c9f2bf71214288afd01a32e7493
68200 F20101118_AACDBE painter_k_Page_077.jpg
c38a6e19fc0b96a913d9821689495d4b
25a67386ef78c7410d0f0861a619853f93da869e
63319 F20101118_AACDAP painter_k_Page_033.jpg
a64d1c7b07dcd75f817892a8aabf2861
6227c34bed4295d1bcf7c0bc9661f6adf6b300d7
73730 F20101118_AACCVJ painter_k_Page_096.jpg
1dff9c721e3fbcc97b0a209f5fd55b01
5642f713802200ee57eee65615dce16c295c701e
23328 F20101118_AACCUV painter_k_Page_055.QC.jpg
e42c1ed5c2a514a055b04c0eca0e2e6c
811f13ae9b611aeb9cdbaa25d2f2e9e380e70361
70694 F20101118_AACDBF painter_k_Page_081.jpg
ca1189aaf7f2b490b058dfd5dac94a1f
fdab68e88d21643bb45ac4bfb2387f083d0e10b0
67616 F20101118_AACDAQ painter_k_Page_035.jpg
48ac73e8613d3e613e0444149391e9c4
6afedbba0521ec9b34336bb879abf669d1bfa14d
104901 F20101118_AACCVK painter_k_Page_106.jpg
5484560c789324883b41e8cc9cf3fb93
a9f2338ca541380bc4c293b4a28bdeacbcd92ef2
6694 F20101118_AACCUW painter_k_Page_107thm.jpg
83d195d99ddd211e7e600b20fc080857
22b53677e934db488927b813daad70eb11ddfb47
67401 F20101118_AACDBG painter_k_Page_082.jpg
6599b41c2f5b2c8d24e26359a9ac7dc9
81c0d331d7f4aa478611adff06a1ad3219714423
100257 F20101118_AACCWA painter_k_Page_018.jp2
bc9c0155b6985992941a0d7a35a57125
49ebebedcacf59a589268e8e4f9947dd26d63e6e
59066 F20101118_AACDAR painter_k_Page_036.jpg
e32a2d700b3bfe163d1e019dfa12ecee
7f0e9291333e0b86949e5bfeb194409c8afd84e6
6312 F20101118_AACCVL painter_k_Page_046thm.jpg
5aa59720a7d064a31c3846f4d4957afa
7effb95df38eb6edbd706b4a82c97c9e3d2151bd
4877 F20101118_AACCUX painter_k_Page_005thm.jpg
26e9649fd4204822ea2707299bbd18d5
91a66698254d468b82dd8ce460b7f0bd2fc92ea3
71603 F20101118_AACDBH painter_k_Page_085.jpg
07edc4513bf044ffc9089829f21575b0
19581cff3d04ffe4600067f2f041dc02197aa3b3
56044 F20101118_AACDAS painter_k_Page_038.jpg
44acdc9f36ec5c23e187990dcba9840a
5d1f3af89f3910d4d7f727931d9aae0b4c8e0b31
F20101118_AACCVM painter_k_Page_062.tif
8d9c2dc5f7f35a94988cba88b7a8bc93
15084bb0d5f30f836c54901cffdb48937e1b2b15
F20101118_AACCUY painter_k_Page_033.tif
9638f42250b74b765f0583662227c784
b7e7aad29f5a9c95684e714b01c9132c040a8df2
48787 F20101118_AACDBI painter_k_Page_087.jpg
92715569e71d013f627a3e7dceb70029
0a53110c7f590cfe34121e5feb71cb99151fc833
F20101118_AACCWB painter_k_Page_081.tif
39e5fd784e60c421903a208f25b91168
ab3a0bddebcd76828b4a5c4d344539d724539ce9
61808 F20101118_AACDAT painter_k_Page_039.jpg
aaacc5ae27854e01738379d4006abe9b
c456514456460f5a1c7aaedda0e5fe6630d4f970
F20101118_AACCVN painter_k_Page_075.tif
f7ccfa2a9f2e15527e56071cdc31aa83
4de1587089fbaa1f19f68e5f685c2a246af504b5
22353 F20101118_AACCUZ painter_k_Page_054.QC.jpg
de61167b195c2141e9bb6f5a9f8f8c99
4eda0942c957a143edcf85704fd9e8ef7f3697fb
39972 F20101118_AACDBJ painter_k_Page_088.jpg
9e086ebffdd2806db23b81fee7d043e2
eb0d33d7b06d633fd74879be3dcbf1e0b8c9fe4b
F20101118_AACCWC painter_k_Page_032.tif
e7b93a3b3b052d0c1734c385615712fc
63b67224e8764831626a6ea325bb6e29b45fb2c7
40528 F20101118_AACDAU painter_k_Page_041.jpg
44b9503fef30a076d46900654216ff95
694618f6590a4770426662942b52052396c892c8
61649 F20101118_AACCVO painter_k_Page_027.jpg
2cbe29ba6b18d34511cacd517999c479
e1a5301371666b2db2accdef73e2f88d8763cf7e
12578 F20101118_AACCWD painter_k_Page_089.pro
5a162524999a36b512c644e1ad7161e5
5a5586fb435c400079706433035765a3806ba81f
52724 F20101118_AACDAV painter_k_Page_043.jpg
0f17206fc4403c63c86daea3d0a1d313
a9f90b38f45fe5ce5d0ab952e5ac348e48428f32
F20101118_AACCVP painter_k_Page_076.tif
d4af7e3e390e6d1749a03c9e4b402144
b57e844b8065b1ac9117c610af152c2defcfaaa2
36960 F20101118_AACDBK painter_k_Page_092.jpg
32178e45271aaa7a4c4f498ccb0c0258
0c87fc28f25723da3b15f43020ed3e7d9b2735bb
6376 F20101118_AACCWE painter_k_Page_099thm.jpg
64c0e205ec3b8dae4ce4b608b34c1e6c
c59c53cd6766328da87cbab82bc34418b403b0b0
61503 F20101118_AACDAW painter_k_Page_044.jpg
68fc29892d6b5a5b84914d29ddb6619e
03b79c2ee40a88eb55d4ae7fa3943a48ef8e223e
F20101118_AACCVQ painter_k_Page_071.tif
2132fd46df3528620c87194710079f04
a1b1ccfdc58cf91f0920af5e353c6b518deb017f
100898 F20101118_AACCWF painter_k_Page_031.jp2
27e096827665f1e8eb05b676feef8ec9
0212bedbb9e5c712df2b4452721972b17fcc81ae
56868 F20101118_AACDAX painter_k_Page_046.jpg
c5fa459cc733d64d15d536fe757a0f0d
ec16e32df469c2d09b8c2c3f5ebbe0907831f9cb
4165 F20101118_AACCVR painter_k_Page_067.QC.jpg
700d200f0b9d36c9663348dcc3ff77d1
eb34004063e503a00d43adeb04e7a74e0ce2168b
105538 F20101118_AACDCA painter_k_Page_058.jp2
4ea62101f664a914f307bd0d34daf465
b17701f927b87d51b0772de0b066a1856ccaf0f3
71230 F20101118_AACDBL painter_k_Page_097.jpg
f295174bff05d914b68c27a739816fd2
1e08acceda524a1889f157d3ad12fa38f5303cfd
87387 F20101118_AACCWG painter_k_Page_079.jpg
d421ef08f5d07aadaf612c1a1eb7088e
2ca4d6d9cc08f2d834427f12ca6a177f96748f4d
71240 F20101118_AACDAY painter_k_Page_049.jpg
c433108c890a0ac1fc015ca82fca19ff
8b12c2cba9fd5afe79f81c6be4bb24f728668fbf
16584 F20101118_AACCVS painter_k_Page_065.QC.jpg
7d819e85e8d2cc2f106c453594977613
f2a8be71bf61b0364c876ac7b53ed4785f31b807
1051975 F20101118_AACDCB painter_k_Page_061.jp2
c681fcb526f3c71cbeca9346ff0d615d
55227d55b20258fd75c3fcf154b517666c204fa7
61286 F20101118_AACDBM painter_k_Page_098.jpg
7f8b4df36018886b374f9d17db3e1a50
c7f3019941bffaebca18a37d3a89377592affa7a
6208 F20101118_AACCWH painter_k_Page_059thm.jpg
38001976e73bfe64629885e770a27a56
c04cf96f5324fbcf8ea4ed7cae9cac6aa1452af6
15259 F20101118_AACDAZ painter_k_Page_056.jpg
87b939fcaab60450857272fe1a2a89ac
67533366f0aee46fd23f53f808e6c115c93c24cd
5074 F20101118_AACCVT painter_k_Page_091thm.jpg
52dcaa72e09e4cb8d99d367d88cc8e2b
a59098f85cde717b24ead128d84ecb357a057765
93032 F20101118_AACDCC painter_k_Page_064.jp2
992385d0634fe2a39bef5c8f365f918b
523f9a2a74c958974de245af87c745f6f2abee3b
73369 F20101118_AACDBN painter_k_Page_100.jpg
23b3de4631e0b060229b7ec395606641
4c51efdd55b5b6ca70e035c7491d53833c598e94
36547 F20101118_AACCWI painter_k_Page_068.pro
14599ee35af2195bc0e31b16eafc0b68
21366ed93e3e451c8e8188a50af79555d5a57412
52582 F20101118_AACCVU painter_k_Page_096.pro
5bfb64cb32a98c8bd02fce884eca27bf
9cbedd05f895f01760e6d9bf0f4568ca94b0c83f
715399 F20101118_AACDCD painter_k_Page_065.jp2
f31c484132c4d07ef2e1bf9216b07ed6
17a6f98a13a649be6680805ca207cb1116e500e9
21104 F20101118_AACDBO painter_k_Page_103.jpg
d0fe0e3b77987a9723fa046249bc4ed2
168dc802ad6ffa56b32cfa20412f06361722f2a2
6354 F20101118_AACCWJ painter_k_Page_029thm.jpg
3f1b5db9052b6e56284973af40e80d04
c69b7b659fb9fed31fde45f5aa33b97e7c4145ea
F20101118_AACCVV painter_k_Page_005.tif
78b59cde9445c142f5fe518a84659da6
55bdfcd5471ce195b491f207bd3d378651d66c76
23689 F20101118_AACDCE painter_k_Page_067.jp2
a7cd03f3a91ee6943b2f85440c629807
e568961591a928a49e08627f10fd53b5c93744bc
103113 F20101118_AACDBP painter_k_Page_105.jpg
b3546761704375f3cd53ebcd91a193be
a796a40632c5aa2f03d2b6754769a3bcb5f3e895
26208 F20101118_AACCWK painter_k_Page_046.pro
e2c8bd6b313b2cfa67e50e9cce7f9f24
2353f2a68fa9fa6ad561270e48912a5fb452d87e
3236 F20101118_AACCVW painter_k_Page_005.txt
f40be327f9c75da5d2e60cf4f0a69693
f82ca731cc5364165a73e7164c06217a4d528544
805537 F20101118_AACDCF painter_k_Page_068.jp2
4e8f77100a5a7b117957ca3ee0602271
47fdc05bc47ffe57f83193f1610b18465a3dae36
29270 F20101118_AACDBQ painter_k_Page_001.jp2
b3c507772bb11d1432d725358d3c50ae
10701e71ab28e8a317935ca7af415409c945e16b
F20101118_AACCWL painter_k_Page_021.tif
7880c5de74f1c5fbad1921e130a79d2c
41f6193a31bb0f98c55b9393820dece139ff297f
1773 F20101118_AACCVX painter_k_Page_016.txt
12eafbce5c48132f2a165a858c1c1492
a2b80d948e2404f7d5f5acfb624b727a9bca71d0
97101 F20101118_AACDCG painter_k_Page_073.jp2
6c99feaee038b54e8cee091165fe66be
50d0d5c62da3437076e40eb263422485c9c01ed4
F20101118_AACCXA painter_k_Page_069.tif
c51cfc32609a38b70a23f06d92df98c7
65ef954e48833f908fda98f39f97dd8f92961acf
57061 F20101118_AACDBR painter_k_Page_004.jp2
a096e45132f064012b71dda9a8e208e4
23c948804f729d3bfa155a31b831607baba3f142
41636 F20101118_AACCWM painter_k_Page_109.pro
e3bc7d56928093bd14077442ebdf011d
60c1ef7b61df1305d8c526c5522ad13dd12e3429
51976 F20101118_AACCVY painter_k_Page_100.pro
f66eae3fe4b4d41e6c97d97fc5205fd7
7f73b9ed865acd87a48b4c12b5efd4e10712f7b3
109822 F20101118_AACDCH painter_k_Page_085.jp2
9367e0452c072f112d58bae48244b1fb
8f494f17ac187e2a4722d757ab57fc6d6518aaf8
4785 F20101118_AACCXB painter_k_Page_030thm.jpg
1f1a9bed99d401aeea3a02d16f114df5
c5d5f8bccc8c337c1ec81f7e6e0c0bf30b4f955e
96634 F20101118_AACDBS painter_k_Page_011.jp2
fd5fb23aa416cc326b3a68123c7f396a
8c24541a7f974ece3fdb6a5982b9c4aabcebbeb9
F20101118_AACCWN painter_k_Page_109.tif
7ebc62dd6424407c976c46a0ec18f872
a0f8de14579def88ffa86c861314eca272d654d1
1002 F20101118_AACCVZ painter_k_Page_004.txt
6e198714134942d88ed39f6b72846d81
6cd14699f26e0ead03b9146735672aa6bd29ecd2
78823 F20101118_AACDCI painter_k_Page_090.jp2
b1c80b80b282c3b06511b2d8233e3873
75ded1db99c2e8052e30b0f6eef07335bfe96530
92910 F20101118_AACDBT painter_k_Page_012.jp2
b21959fb45649888ebe265d3aac8435b
6851fd14978482d20c1aae201b2a7cdd50fb7c3c
F20101118_AACCWO painter_k_Page_013.tif
ec13db8d845daaef0df80f7afa2b616e
ad01fc92d30b2efcd5a7eb495ad622a0af3105b3
104013 F20101118_AACDCJ painter_k_Page_093.jp2
d86c66868e8f44684ed76a793a1bf93b
f44c069f704cabac199301e51c66a4063e7caa5b
69641 F20101118_AACCXC painter_k_Page_075.jpg
67bfcb31b0e9834ae2a906ab7c0fa477
011e54ed5f187403b072fe8bdcdfd9127eeed3ee
106014 F20101118_AACDBU painter_k_Page_024.jp2
f8a89dcb1ae5ec4912bc56ab3052773d
770c324248938bc1f817953674c1ccf2b619ead5
101105 F20101118_AACCWP painter_k_Page_023.jp2
39297f065b80e6fdfbc06b8d23ab9f23
c37039b7ead12591d8357702d5b394f524b4e19a
111119 F20101118_AACDCK painter_k_Page_097.jp2
f0551fe53ed0ca9de5351b84cc3827d8
a038481e6b79e26a18e138b5c6ba5eb86f20fa1d
110637 F20101118_AACCXD painter_k_Page_014.jp2
b5dac6bf9383eb38944498a436c2c79d
f5c95f5b1bd4da609d2b49ad90f0e039cd99dfbd
104088 F20101118_AACDBV painter_k_Page_029.jp2
521268b28a610f9625430071fad5fa05
2b0165a20fc5e5b1221002f494e3c83ad0349110
106116 F20101118_AACCWQ painter_k_Page_075.jp2
067bfd0a48e01d0c39005498531ce7c3
d50935121840995d335ad87eec900b74b047aa3d
1051960 F20101118_AACDCL painter_k_Page_104.jp2
b131def30e8b47a4542be7a2b9137015
9002c3316fbb7a5b94c6c164059b6f02aa37cbb4
662 F20101118_AACCXE painter_k_Page_087.txt
91c21652cfdb3dd38fdbfebb2e5a2735
4d29060fdf28d8ccfaa498c1492065ffa7fb1d3c
792435 F20101118_AACDBW painter_k_Page_030.jp2
aaf7de9979c08d1e896965efe4897338
cd08689d25cf3f39fa7087c58b5556641d2a6eca
F20101118_AACCWR painter_k_Page_104.tif
c0cb90596aae4a03c6b9f427cadec2a5
aaa8cb9f109dd089d168782cde7f25252743111f
F20101118_AACDDA painter_k_Page_042.tif
96d21c3284fc89cf795d6fd9ac7fe9e1
a0fb0cbe1deeef262f6095dffbdb29a1e37f162d
1966 F20101118_AACCXF painter_k_Page_085.txt
71ba65da512a29802052ce620f6c3302
97b2b14e67a471e4ab04e9c59dc890e9c6ee3474
835311 F20101118_AACDBX painter_k_Page_039.jp2
d14e3bea153251380eaf274329fcd84c
3a199b95840f1c6c129bf2b78a2e075d1ead4e15
6478 F20101118_AACCWS painter_k_Page_100thm.jpg
29960abb2bc9db5dca499d292d641bb1
7b2c2dfe384baf59b3cdf0d9b8c2d3f0575fcfb9
F20101118_AACDDB painter_k_Page_045.tif
c7b4e9676bf57ddd15ca49d2cf2e7d8c
bddb30a266ca1bf6317a99b9e84dca14d92f3613
1051983 F20101118_AACDCM painter_k_Page_106.jp2
111f2df760cc3872552f4639fd7873ff
23d53ca018889950357556823606b904962bbbaa
63843 F20101118_AACCXG painter_k_Page_013.jpg
e02c2c5d90d52796c0fcddcc910b168e
cd5d0315901dbd918fd9bed406a666d077e35658
96800 F20101118_AACDBY painter_k_Page_041.jp2
5e664240f0a17c0b31ab9288fe20ec4b
16b27dac5db9ab329810a9f1df9564bdc66f2ffb
60653 F20101118_AACCWT painter_k_Page_034.jpg
7f3661abdc6cb0fb3c01186fd02d9dab
27f78e834a57d3974952491558caa14cef511eeb
F20101118_AACDDC painter_k_Page_047.tif
7b1d791b877415bbf495bc93dd2936d4
ae2a59ec786f56c6a99c9dcaf20d475e8aa1869e
38431 F20101118_AACDCN painter_k_Page_110.jp2
a48be57609e0470a5438dec86b76a8b8
adca017e606ab390b371da7cbb4dc0b7fa252a89
102905 F20101118_AACCXH painter_k_Page_032.jp2
e47a4b818a9b8743baa7c4ec8a0303a5
4d9f50b2fa228f00301bd382cd0bff54af3c32ab
109625 F20101118_AACDBZ painter_k_Page_049.jp2
93efe1434f9ad3d481fb02c66223fb22
d1b3c65ea980456a57210df695256795780fa44f
F20101118_AACCWU painter_k_Page_040.tif
05b4b53bfd060ba0f2e558846343a640
324684ea1aedef30050a7faed20e94dc29b6ae46
F20101118_AACDDD painter_k_Page_048.tif
f9f4e461b86eb8696bb5fef2fed7d28f
bcb005c178d8bdc9fd1706e34233c9b3b9c0ac61
F20101118_AACDCO painter_k_Page_001.tif
a8b658df50da8bb24d7606f6af6aec4e
74cf542431e5e94ccd984e647596bd183b024293
66673 F20101118_AACCXI painter_k_Page_086.jpg
d6a329177397837ddf539920054416ab
5492c2eef4ef99d0d2aac199c0250cef8f59a955
F20101118_AACCWV painter_k_Page_080.tif
60c6131325b5c5d96866eeba55e7d2c1
84330b023e90cd58ff775b31030868c839d91369
F20101118_AACDDE painter_k_Page_050.tif
8867c180ba670b241e708751fbf9a39a
1575758f2fa358142772f8afac2b96859da9be74
F20101118_AACDCP painter_k_Page_003.tif
f5a48064f70e461bffc659522f859f1c
2ca4fccec739b3d13522499de1a1c0cf08850907
F20101118_AACCXJ painter_k_Page_089.tif
7d79b8de0537641a12e18eeb57274018
4fed5ce46974ecad522d659001b0bbf6304b0f1e
96430 F20101118_AACCWW painter_k_Page_013.jp2
0863b69f11be6de937a0b54e14d82bce
ec23b7b3a8726e9f5ff683cc837077ac8231a236
F20101118_AACDDF painter_k_Page_052.tif
ecb24829d8b6840e6c60b866314a321d
11ed2b7fdecc99fb681b9971ca86be2fce154119
F20101118_AACDCQ painter_k_Page_004.tif
538bea9a21a17b38606c2aba4ca89a33
31af61448b547230d0da06a251185429d478762b
27477 F20101118_AACCXK painter_k_Page_045.pro
9516947badc40bef6e4799ccb637ce66
d7e31e56094c4555cd18823d93c5e6a685fcabb3
22348 F20101118_AACCWX painter_k_Page_024.QC.jpg
8caf4a710780a4fdc42caabf7fac35d5
04f7604ed11bd1f33ca0d202360a7de99af6d970
F20101118_AACDDG painter_k_Page_058.tif
b1c4f5122d51b8a48c63f3c770d2cdf6
433cbfce13882aeaba18884376131b34f91d4e51
2337 F20101118_AACCYA painter_k_Page_103thm.jpg
9a384cc5f31431cf047cf8365bd17e6d
16a5149c8ed7cd25b6018bd8693b884457612fda
F20101118_AACDCR painter_k_Page_012.tif
8ef63ca699f6c7c170ab44ce9d592885
60df3edf22c135d64ab1164621565e027e40eacc
52151 F20101118_AACCXL painter_k_Page_041.pro
4a6be25b018d94b01d5c97620c537032
ae19dd76ae7ad745fe279aa003961071c59feb73
F20101118_AACCWY painter_k_Page_019.tif
56090e51ed486d7b489ec0b8a40dccb9
9c6d19de0f70868febb9d24efd9323d826e1e9cf
F20101118_AACDDH painter_k_Page_065.tif
f0792b782b7083e2c0803bcca2f72bee
c1ba78cb97fa78a69dbc75ff5c0afcb610b1ba1d
F20101118_AACCYB painter_k_Page_006.tif
76b975e807334d0f468478b1aa4903d4
87ce9cbc3a741703eb1c8b9c1296d354befc52d2
F20101118_AACDCS painter_k_Page_014.tif
5832ff6aac13258ff454db44544a3371
98f57b1fec9655a1829ed44491c94bb68eb12087
22518 F20101118_AACCXM painter_k_Page_051.QC.jpg
a1a4efc701015b18bea7ee939dbc575f
f99e9c89d92bb4048757ab935f108eee04479009
61951 F20101118_AACCWZ painter_k_Page_068.jpg
ef2f5a0471bfa6ffeb1c60f6dbe5d319
eaa52f86161ef1419565ea561396c79b8232b270
F20101118_AACDDI painter_k_Page_068.tif
92ce6845eb475265b32a9649aa07c6a5
7ade9494dd5dc0378d3f4f227fb981e20dffa73a
87474 F20101118_AACCYC painter_k_Page_010.jp2
47b459cd368d2b7ecf2e9cf65e0a6f5e
2dc754dd7f72ca603da812ae470011799f136e1c
F20101118_AACDCT painter_k_Page_016.tif
21189586a12eb12fc4a1bc81f989dab1
8f58407bfcd1600f7b12e5382694d734e18ba3b1
5226 F20101118_AACCXN painter_k_Page_038thm.jpg
da59a2bd6e878591916b8faddca58b43
8906df7d3e907384744e83dc68cb5713c4826faa
F20101118_AACDDJ painter_k_Page_072.tif
f6c2b7b96916a065831075161992eb38
6a6d34f2c40605be96f737579b92fbca2edebc3e
F20101118_AACDCU painter_k_Page_024.tif
02174db82762c8e672de14f2ffc94130
3ff24bb19a9bcf619162a48302ded964e5f4e241
26460 F20101118_AACCXO painter_k_Page_079.QC.jpg
d3de04ec8cea45312f218ea5125f8d50
ecb142f8d88d239a0d99b8d206f6c5d53cae6246
F20101118_AACDDK painter_k_Page_073.tif
6864f6b4fe092ecf738c97c1556ceef2
d8d30d5f2f77427925d677f28e3c8e385fc7113e
1869 F20101118_AACCYD painter_k_Page_022.txt
548ec14e715f34807931641fee0b4f33
96bd0f2d56df6a1772bf0a194200205fd020bc59
F20101118_AACDCV painter_k_Page_025.tif
35152546d82d0e33946403f02cf1eaaa
cf7a95f5f8d0d549bcc58c50f96cb76768acc198
1949 F20101118_AACCXP painter_k_Page_099.txt
d77a8603288c4f53dd83099f27fc81b0
4760a6554f3b2148ba742b0fc36ab48eafb5688b
F20101118_AACDDL painter_k_Page_078.tif
43621b9fac31cc62ffe04094fbfbfab2
1f8778c82ec8a6ac1eab8aa14a294392b03b4270
66229 F20101118_AACCYE painter_k_Page_017.jpg
1501027ae70c5dded592ef43655587dc
89f9269f6d1fae019ef1369e61a1526ac3b103fc
F20101118_AACDCW painter_k_Page_027.tif
fc0c61fa2a206a4d2c337ca44a4a03b2
f324a1be8cfb0279200590c5c33af21f646effb9
93177 F20101118_AACCXQ painter_k_Page_027.jp2
da26c4789d7d09e4d3ffc62b45afa6b9
0bacd8cff9dfe897c548fb1566824ae709c075a2
F20101118_AACDDM painter_k_Page_079.tif
cb075cb5c70aa2b76488da077574aec9
339e1ab8f7fb2ab737598d762171a9cb66f46e66
6659 F20101118_AACCYF painter_k_Page_062thm.jpg
3f4f2f9b4b1db8d18358ec21425c5665
72e753bf199b393c16558b3e11128420bdbf2c10
F20101118_AACDCX painter_k_Page_036.tif
d570118eeb68169ceea92f6c28956ca1
a216621f2871b067a259907180ceb36b1064a7a9
32703 F20101118_AACCXR painter_k_Page_008.jpg
fdd92a363e9ec9a50ffa6ad142635fa3
9a56c4b48e59e4eaa65e4d159c919ab04558b2a4
47116 F20101118_AACDEA painter_k_Page_026.pro
55f7d1f868cacb909926aa6ef80d8add
5ecea2036c9d1b24cec2b52d2626343d40d51222
F20101118_AACCYG painter_k_Page_067.tif
330d3a58a7c35f893dd8552bbe2948d2
359224a0ed75852188b474c0e53cd23ca180aaee
F20101118_AACDCY painter_k_Page_038.tif
25f5d86e1078f4a11985c1fd651db28d
7144ee3f55d1750d5ec48c914e28c6439f71d4f7
68344 F20101118_AACCXS painter_k_Page_051.jpg
f373cb489806b02529a1230ab970bfac
3eb7e152450bbd05e40fac7c85b68d3e2b0ed7ee
47855 F20101118_AACDEB painter_k_Page_029.pro
5e6368956f71ca2fbea4854368b3cd71
861c1229340f9395e8f541890000b4a0bbf0d6a0
F20101118_AACDDN painter_k_Page_090.tif
adddb25609b3008116bcbffb64327399
b6d985515c4138b9a2aa922e5ef1811b10120c47
104599 F20101118_AACCYH painter_k_Page_082.jp2
6e21a96cbe10f9fc21845b5a39d0611a
0a1850e6f622d20cd2b2cdef601d05b1bd3742ac
F20101118_AACDCZ painter_k_Page_039.tif
dbd414bc93f17acc08c7f134581a0a82
2138bf3b2e5531751fe5f4696d3d8169392c3d2c
1918 F20101118_AACCXT painter_k_Page_058.txt
6f8e275035bb52f741adbf0d3eac14ef
32dac6f2b598f6a95c460bae242958b4dea95e90
17145 F20101118_AACDEC painter_k_Page_030.pro
7d49c4d6083e79f981183220b64e1402
33613138b5c9c7e13cb1506fc13c4d884ac22235
F20101118_AACDDO painter_k_Page_093.tif
0d8d2024cc76b4f73a604061e54a62f7
ebde36020052c2286e84c8f3c2b7f3dfbf079724
22174 F20101118_AACCYI painter_k_Page_074.QC.jpg
e62795045f92d69586fb518d171c1485
99fbee179f47cbcee19a74c1d4af9ed5b2124e96
70035 F20101118_AACCXU painter_k_Page_099.jpg
e0b1d6ef317ca51fdf3fdb18d4047a1d
e77c62ae7cec1b26f0e67989595360d6304b3184
46504 F20101118_AACDED painter_k_Page_031.pro
2fb73a3ad3cc3364eade7de35551b76d
86e1903b33c0a06598c22976d73632bd8807b8e1
F20101118_AACDDP painter_k_Page_096.tif
2afb11259f3e43b60ad250cf0f4a520b
e7629d612cf35f72aea15abcf9f139a1e34f8a11
69078 F20101118_AACCYJ painter_k_Page_074.jpg
4cc14e26890987b3e86eee2af9ac8a90
406663aca55711dcd73efc9bee29a327144aa1ed
19682 F20101118_AACCXV painter_k_Page_012.QC.jpg
6aca9107197fa26523a29d057c9c0dca
1ce5880e13af36a721f5e76564cfef2fc31114c4
50240 F20101118_AACDEE painter_k_Page_050.pro
ffaf93c01890e2cc70344776430fc068
bcbfff6a92cb90b87ba03d1d6057046db5e5083a
F20101118_AACDDQ painter_k_Page_102.tif
1981af11c3ef30e50c625607d53e6be0
a594dff46329f9dce58a123f0e2d86c85159048f
47204 F20101118_AACCYK painter_k_Page_077.pro
9ca797d986fa2aeba04292b8df506837
9c381e5b67fdcef68ea0b6cfc6d6838b351e3d04
19741 F20101118_AACCXW painter_k_Page_098.QC.jpg
ccdb13a2ae448fc56ae83b60182bdfc1
cf7ac2d22b0738f64ddc432a328f84bfa13a029d
46592 F20101118_AACDEF painter_k_Page_059.pro
e88bedff83b0ee8c1fb48c69167e3f5e
9fd4a5c8c2e61843f6b32691d60558bcc7602fcd
52208 F20101118_AACCZA painter_k_Page_070.pro
dd64095339961bc25f30e8afc573a916
e008d66d2a5d7ac88deba8ad729e28db4f6108ad
F20101118_AACDDR painter_k_Page_103.tif
f433d2173d0ed0613636ced10ea9b2d0
71ca342dfe5e906090910c4f45315f260bf77103
48925 F20101118_AACCYL painter_k_Page_075.pro
4ef1fff0414b7a0260f5261b163ce8c8
b8aad53bfc07e113fb010d9aaf940999027bcf8c
F20101118_AACCXX painter_k_Page_098.tif
5ac0eb54c86c623cb03deab2700f703d
fe09b8eb80bd96959dabb36e1f6f3a8ecf90d448
50080 F20101118_AACDEG painter_k_Page_060.pro
92643949d37cce67eac616a2641b02c1
038bab8a8704bf78cb0c4da919b0627656aa0a75
2044 F20101118_AACCZB painter_k_Page_100.txt
365b531de0bc2bf61ef2e754a4c35f85
2f24c0f8166f0dd6001ff39cdaf6b6902c789429
F20101118_AACDDS painter_k_Page_110.tif
1e9cbc061201524e257ed5da5bfbeb7a
2ed02cb104ffe4465a76e33895babf8c87aa2ce0
6402 F20101118_AACCYM painter_k_Page_097thm.jpg
54f87cf707726684f5910b542b730786
a86a734e48ae2b9e458467ae83896b640ee14fd2
56715 F20101118_AACCXY painter_k_Page_045.jpg
f33dec59f49fa97ccd48027b5c89b304
184c010290f41ccf4151928ee7224d8a08fcb542
49565 F20101118_AACDEH painter_k_Page_061.pro
9efac362eb830004b06e906a1a6b9559
c7b0219cf5f417dd4bb8c6bd48187d2e8a3cbd82
6195 F20101118_AACCZC painter_k_Page_020thm.jpg
a473123777e062978ad14742aac679e6
d97312d6391c2335675dc7ca726456ca973a0a11
23074 F20101118_AACDDT painter_k_Page_008.pro
8662b1456a84d663ce1077009938e5cc
31f546a6b7ce08ab075854014f6cc7a1480e05e3
6414 F20101118_AACCYN painter_k_Page_055thm.jpg
6127ab55000b97149e07fd3dff074fbd
f24ba85e54785b62415d2ae264ce5bbdeb91cb68
5866 F20101118_AACCXZ painter_k_Page_011thm.jpg
2e2bd7bd1c1df1c2d38c6aaa6e9039ef
a135a65f9297c0e488bac4fa34a2ccc9bf1f76c3
50440 F20101118_AACDEI painter_k_Page_063.pro
9e9b14115154b09bbac054358d7a434c
92e4555439bf23d531df85e00c009dd47c549561
97195 F20101118_AACCZD painter_k_Page_033.jp2
a866e6f35150121802ff208b1ed57c64
2113bf74093b8b22b9e4889a9ecd2e0c9b3e0885
38501 F20101118_AACDDU painter_k_Page_010.pro
79ccf2473baae034058a5adf5320554c
0fcae3b7867f3bf505763411a5b15b9ec0d0df5c
F20101118_AACCYO painter_k_Page_037.tif
caf5afb8e4e89dfb4f1e16aa9059c0e3
4c88135e2e2f017f5b9f56dfeeee43e7d71d60fe
41932 F20101118_AACDEJ painter_k_Page_064.pro
4d11d7dc232a2a32bb22df6227ea91ec
9a867bad075ff75c5a251bb189412acba0d6c4ce
43280 F20101118_AACDDV painter_k_Page_011.pro
9a50f72b1a21d959d249fcd565bca2f5
d09237bd28038b96d6c8a4470a74facb76120215
72920 F20101118_AACCYP painter_k_Page_109.jpg
90352091fde2befc529f367517795bca
56addbda37cfa9afee18e2ab86c1d4bf02047ce4
47000 F20101118_AACDEK painter_k_Page_066.pro
235783085acea59030fad9a8a0de1ef1
aec8494abccbaf9afb7e2650fc3cb9715cdbb0ee
1733 F20101118_AACCZE painter_k_Page_011.txt
6ada4d249f11e251bc8219df6e9fcce2
0b23f9dacc8a14f03e6a69a08584f8929e2e0ab0
51446 F20101118_AACDDW painter_k_Page_014.pro
2e6e09855c4bfaa1d607a4b8d114f097
1d21209c949bd48f7168868698014b2cae0b1ce4
F20101118_AACCYQ painter_k_Page_070.tif
c3077919d08425dc0ccbad43cb82e0c8
c345e763020c97e85f6980cdd0c0e4bcef5bb30b
35692 F20101118_AACDEL painter_k_Page_072.pro
52ad3db0fb2cff6e6c836c3326b32f72
69d7b0e5a8b1023e1d0072f36aad359fec965dfd
42430 F20101118_AACCZF painter_k_Page_016.pro
a34140d465464d83a8e012c55f395844
55ba7349be6cf0813bd85ba1fa49d35485b83640
49098 F20101118_AACDDX painter_k_Page_020.pro
91d3c8f107de3de348e2e92e369a92c0
1fa5ad7974f63e6779241bf6da83f9c6fa392962
75584 F20101118_AACCYR painter_k_Page_005.pro
0890160135c85bf57d05a110ebe10ebe
51de090c55944c998fa7bf954c074fd6f8395a0b
1872 F20101118_AACDFA painter_k_Page_031.txt
3cfd94e2b647ceb02730676f8d23c031
dce6576cdaede4df02aa19653b787d724fc48ac3
47841 F20101118_AACDEM painter_k_Page_074.pro
95252764aea05fba821c6894071df5ac
78303b2c44e772fc81c5aab6585b1062fc60f592
1051945 F20101118_AACCZG painter_k_Page_105.jp2
4dcece7ef735197517ad0a2bcfedffe1
08413a7f04a0fe7e3e4323b4b614e83eaafc2103
47386 F20101118_AACDDY painter_k_Page_022.pro
6ef94d2519de68cf5289c6ae2dc0fd73
5d7992628790aae732f9da95acaf4dc7b808ddd2
17556 F20101118_AACCYS painter_k_Page_045.QC.jpg
a0faa9f82c7b9ce55bc213850891ca99
d5ed3ce655e48799ab60b3ed5250195dc78d8677
1653 F20101118_AACDFB painter_k_Page_038.txt
0c0e4e5c03cec87b6c0274b78d3461e2
4f8885f18fd8d7b4ef7e2d85fb8ab75b06da3496
52018 F20101118_AACDEN painter_k_Page_076.pro
5fdae245221dadb02f08c0dcc54ae454
9125186213e69260336392cad64168029fda245b
70736 F20101118_AACCZH painter_k_Page_101.jpg
0935587aa5c1253765aebb9aa61cfebc
f557f772a11b36c315cc7cebe20c819122a154d8
48443 F20101118_AACDDZ painter_k_Page_024.pro
ec7de268820bfefe8ecd17e0dda94e56
b41b04fb69e84294c4ff3394e00b98cf3f28968f
F20101118_AACCYT painter_k_Page_084.tif
99c40c17dccbe8765d37575e5100338b
a3e2d7a2cbccdba9d5fd8e9b46f2dfa45499f2e8
F20101118_AACDFC painter_k_Page_045.txt
73ebd7d50351dbad3cfd9cbfcf9069ff
27ed5773e33428406ad656d48f1b39322a3bcff1
92256 F20101118_AACCZI painter_k_Page_066.jp2
ea3336c794acc36a5f03df7284e88c91
7984633bf775b61f733f099cff789d919b43d495
F20101118_AACCYU painter_k_Page_035.tif
c9868137f967bdb9ca5726aae9757b4d
5b3c3e4a16209a282140586c60d51f97156671b1
2071 F20101118_AACDFD painter_k_Page_052.txt
b353467d5e1f0da5a77edc851761f7d0
8d52b4ad918bf0ee4d93b41bb913b9df330a8771
50218 F20101118_AACDEO painter_k_Page_081.pro
496648bae2e024b55141e1b21f96cbf1
fdda445edc3241595094f3718d176d6b9a021739
3017 F20101118_AACCYV painter_k_Page_110thm.jpg
e30804a0cd74324b91e073622ed00e4f
d18d4d2da187fd79a2b718dbbdf054e7b391b1af
1897 F20101118_AACDFE painter_k_Page_053.txt
251e14c7f6fe1d3a843990a3bdbf6b64
bce20491b5d7b74fcd1594936d89241649b5b6a6
27048 F20101118_AACDEP painter_k_Page_084.pro
e4d83b7207ba7de43ad172006e03c462
a4749852464582ebd8486b0ebf74b4f7d5c87ec2
6329 F20101118_AACCZJ painter_k_Page_050thm.jpg
7237b0a830d8ca1995de3c2a701f638b
90f681fb269f9f8574e271d115c4e7633e493ffe
50169 F20101118_AACCYW painter_k_Page_044.pro
32b31b6144dbd43d58973e7944f111c7
f615876bd38309d7dae3679e74517012d8e9227d
F20101118_AACDFF painter_k_Page_061.txt
ded60c673b42f8e9234927d923f6794b
4a9d3e375b7555f88fd28e647ffe4522ecf1933e
50092 F20101118_AACDEQ painter_k_Page_085.pro
f6309812666fb810f9d0f2749009fc75
5a144406d78dcc6de8f64756466abd6453d56e6d
F20101118_AACCZK painter_k_Page_049.tif
d8f4465bc90bccfc2d974934579eced1
33a059c07ebb155876fe3ae00feea515d0c68c5b
22448 F20101118_AACCYX painter_k_Page_053.QC.jpg
dd050f475a8c3db6d55d8efdf67e8789
909ab256c5de67feee1f547a53363d22e7b8bda3
2003 F20101118_AACDFG painter_k_Page_062.txt
2198a8da8ef6c8e688bc2bc48dc65901
5faff9a1c23e3e1648839118fa438c1240c16760
45702 F20101118_AACDER painter_k_Page_086.pro
10ae91edab3d998c144d4049703dd6be
b78d3d2f968efbad2aead8948b2efb60df07b596
1051985 F20101118_AACCZL painter_k_Page_107.jp2
ed0f9ba0a6529d5a72b61291356edf21
5176257992323d7039ed2b10ed4d9e86d67675f7
463 F20101118_AACCYY painter_k_Page_103.txt
753b499aba4c320b348c3d4b42f882a8
6eebfdb6e75041fb69d1b1eb702d0f99e1b96773
1980 F20101118_AACDFH painter_k_Page_063.txt
65866169833a85a0655df6638df8e212
671e995372292b1839b9c245e09ba9dbb1249552
15216 F20101118_AACDES painter_k_Page_087.pro
de14875e82ff7c33bf2962e9fab04c1a
3c1f0059ede6a08bff4f3f94db4e4b0374059bae
F20101118_AACCZM painter_k_Page_054.tif
50117ca92b8dfb36363acf799db4b953
8498e819a8891590708fef8fb1abb49775502d4a
1891 F20101118_AACCYZ painter_k_Page_077.txt
69cd4e8f290077d479716d74f8bdc5b0
969bb4cde6019d96b2f4fba54cd6e0e468c424c7
2053 F20101118_AACDFI painter_k_Page_070.txt
d51f3f2a6fa0a99e0fca7bb5c149c84b
8bf3cf0f6821f3cc4f2211c9bbca2aa23299bd43
9244 F20101118_AACDET painter_k_Page_088.pro
95603982449ac09b7f2535c9292821f5
201185c1acf09bef167784a7920e064923c58c70
40124 F20101118_AACCZN painter_k_Page_036.pro
14349405fb7bc4b02361673dc90a6cb9
8da4adc52017c2fd200fc403177de177fd04ec0f
1890 F20101118_AACDFJ painter_k_Page_074.txt
78eb50be44ee41c0f9a593e686e5b377
d52a2275e6e7e3efbc1fc9a8d21d584adda67524
49478 F20101118_AACDEU painter_k_Page_099.pro
63947f9d2a509b526b3947fa6415a2b0
980b1498abc6ea3153c6905e545bd91d05f82f82
1602 F20101118_AACCZO painter_k_Page_036.txt
42637f43804f3b6978cb6aaa52b5ec14
78b5a469c54a645c19fe258cee4955bdacff346f
1945 F20101118_AACDFK painter_k_Page_075.txt
cb49bf1fffaea1dd4334966a8fe72abc
9ca63639f88a164a8c4c09897ff29aaef3e51802
10600 F20101118_AACDEV painter_k_Page_103.pro
be71f1f7186de55fc6a825b4c12cc6db
2a792bbcd42d0b4ffe02008cb67b6a2966b82c9f
102060 F20101118_AACCZP painter_k_Page_077.jp2
61be0684b0b1bf207ae2fbb4d19041b2
938c5ed488d51ab23e7180d368b5557f31e829bd
1757 F20101118_AACDFL painter_k_Page_078.txt
239df2d7981d84c4c8d1702323ad46c9
a82ad1877df9ce531c4c19f8fa24808f5ae31d4c
1725 F20101118_AACDEW painter_k_Page_012.txt
4f4ec43b77f8b8ea5e35f997aeeb0bdb
d4a82efb0e9b2e7782bd3e6f1b0c28877c223e03
5706 F20101118_AACCZQ painter_k_Page_016thm.jpg
1b4b8c8cc134e76e21e811f7bb377607
6334ab5b977a3c073b5132aec3f168537b573d4d
F20101118_AACDGA painter_k_Page_003thm.jpg
8bbca84ba184f14578e2101f619ca78b
3972285e5b5214e6525d4cc58714ea77173ee9af
1287 F20101118_AACDFM painter_k_Page_080.txt
33f8b042ec868c87cf3ac5a04c7a653d
27617900148dfd4bf2382e5c6204a73601d24bd6
1769 F20101118_AACDEX painter_k_Page_018.txt
769b1ca3ba5dec06391b9ee0452859ad
02837031662fcef523f0314e369fe46d75c6d6fb
51289 F20101118_AACCZR painter_k_Page_097.pro
9d2cc55721bc8934c48276b64c53ff9b
4c2c98791945f3fa31c790232210a57012528293
18256 F20101118_AACDGB painter_k_Page_005.QC.jpg
149d0634d5592fff16d9bd7623092e58
387051ee0e37252c6d8960206eaa319e1d3c4388
1971 F20101118_AACDFN painter_k_Page_081.txt
f8e91177f9555b93396e56200fa996db
234ec7ef314abe1a51c4132cc02b409b5e93c2c9
2850 F20101118_AACDEY painter_k_Page_028.txt
1d5dde919a22c2d68f87ce719aef5c68
3d22684ba6f17e3b28412c795600451831db1bda
26830 F20101118_AACCZS painter_k_Page_091.pro
6ae5de8173860344d61cdc52d3c4ff56
2e2f7aa864e6229a98efc5f21e15d56672244de1
23619 F20101118_AACDGC painter_k_Page_006.QC.jpg
fc5f094ca70da2efcf190de52df2a14b
7c0f40bd9712c69b7bef545b423b2094829e2bd6
539 F20101118_AACDFO painter_k_Page_089.txt
48b04678128093db4b484309d1c528a2
c2342e6ae90e28a1c257f9d7e0542edb99aae2a7
684 F20101118_AACDEZ painter_k_Page_030.txt
b84dc6ddb703d00dd144fb1946f1ed3d
b008beb6f31e7588ad095a2f2c1192cb3f3fd5eb
34814 F20101118_AACCZT painter_k_Page_048.pro
f5196b65f9bd0171aadfea75cf22a991
fa83c67e65377bf06ed083dd99fd9695691048f2
5858 F20101118_AACDGD painter_k_Page_006thm.jpg
47862f636ce37c57add54e8151761df5
0270725478e2622277d11d53336bc7d0c7df369e
F20101118_AACCZU painter_k_Page_002.tif
45495d0892fed9607623376a066a4804
f0f595e6a765e680c96582e7efd51084b5e17f80
2872 F20101118_AACDGE painter_k_Page_008thm.jpg
b8fd3e27390f7392691c002f3e08ca17
b1d4a811b2af10a6f9b531c1dd9b08fffd28c6c1
1254 F20101118_AACDFP painter_k_Page_091.txt
a06d9f8d87cd647656c36a8cd989ad1b
f74027d364d59be93bcfb1b969077ffe1b77e8b7
5500 F20101118_AACCZV painter_k_Page_056.pro
7476d86de287aa9be218627c58eb94cc
1268c8f6f0a30aa7b7ae86ea5cd60b1bb92b184b
20593 F20101118_AACDGF painter_k_Page_009.QC.jpg
e3ec4b44bd77e01e45983bf06385e544
93f8c110f63d6adb84ba333c2afa087f95ddd10b
508 F20101118_AACDFQ painter_k_Page_092.txt
4e1eaa32f864a5b9283c19d432b3edf0
c8ac053af643ce4f3e4fcfa6d6c3cf5d5359a913
2360 F20101118_AACCZW painter_k_Page_107.txt
0f141f3cce939a2c4ba79e3969bccda8
d8afcb5d3cb13bc3c43b97a8b385f53a00dff0ee
20875 F20101118_AACDGG painter_k_Page_011.QC.jpg
f979624596b6f9a619b5c44cb5c89ea2
71deb29559ea71b4ee92bf6f95fe8172b7b5c6fc
1928 F20101118_AACDFR painter_k_Page_093.txt
e444eaabf6bee29e0cb8274b9dc86804
9630fa5049a1e38423e5baa5f3f93f92e30a95d2
99070 F20101118_AACCZX painter_k_Page_107.jpg
b3e839d91d59cd7b0b69ff3b776fca89
b223db10b02f91b9564247bb4e4d3a9c02b44381
F20101118_AACDFS painter_k_Page_094.txt
99862e0f683a35ebbd577eff4a4f8de8
066d7790c2aa139295358b0dc80c8c7c81e751a9
899533 F20101118_AACCZY painter_k_Page_087.jp2
3a0dd29bdd41236895f9814311a03869
244c593b48a3563ee9e601feec33df9b11ef9166
5667 F20101118_AACDGH painter_k_Page_012thm.jpg
04fc04ce796575dc637b5a7969a7aa57
f30a3bf8e304eece8bc095fc3943178f84e1edfd
1933 F20101118_AACDFT painter_k_Page_101.txt
c407b1788cea140ba1c21756b1bbf00c
db23a2f59f0eca823cf8cbe512b9606e8186dd60
166369 F20101118_AACCZZ UFE0015301_00001.xml FULL
d1a6ccf60768726d2af88dbfdcd5de47
a46e5a7f83848d05fbce5eb87b16568022c68ce8
20555 F20101118_AACDGI painter_k_Page_013.QC.jpg
c07c986f723ffcd56950941673da4973
4d2b65f7e79fadac6256c169966a038488973353
2273 F20101118_AACDFU painter_k_Page_104.txt
647509a27747370282792b627d747d49
02137c835c4005c1117bb1d0c29f09b8a82508ca
5849 F20101118_AACDGJ painter_k_Page_013thm.jpg
b01698ec21be24feec017c797579489a
b41d16481f9a3f6c719f2ff3f5fa305f5691717a
2559 F20101118_AACDFV painter_k_Page_105.txt
15542aa56be688aec7e9a59ee7e92855
df7d8cf6325dadc02790de9020e5c28b1404b58c
6522 F20101118_AACDGK painter_k_Page_014thm.jpg
71d93e196338e8a324a6630405856a9c
e4a04082b083c7e00373fffa53e834ae9dd9fbf0
1711 F20101118_AACDFW painter_k_Page_109.txt
5d3696c6ea7e2ac3d8420d5cdbebc509
c6c3505112494b4f381158cd7217aa31f7cc4ce3
5077 F20101118_AACDGL painter_k_Page_015thm.jpg
620413143f61f4faa002a49df0acf194
f7a96917a699408da73d57539adf0ba53e11510e
1063764 F20101118_AACDFX painter_k.pdf
e93f2aa9a720841fd9bd40f49f9e0a6e
f7373c70afeda99f9b17edd210ed6a6dee403a16
21652 F20101118_AACDHA painter_k_Page_040.QC.jpg
1b8cb1f435f0a3524dadd1e43fb3851b
c33452ab1f872e71ebe16238967d8bf39e861125
6004 F20101118_AACDGM painter_k_Page_017thm.jpg
3751dd727e3735086226c1e9ba1b6916
24e1f85ae444dbd5cb95278a9a5c420703c20712
3346 F20101118_AACDFY painter_k_Page_002.QC.jpg
251690cc3a3930c3f461883201e79720
b155b02e28de9bdefa942fbb1cdaabde3b837b98
6310 F20101118_AACDHB painter_k_Page_053thm.jpg
0d3704f393a701d0f469206fae29eca1
509b62cf9cd399d12009fa516c0140c4b5e7abd4
22454 F20101118_AACDGN painter_k_Page_022.QC.jpg
1510d809b10f44addc81a9d5159a40bc
8331f6d75f08fc5d1f6a164aef6e6ea9b6b7a45e
1391 F20101118_AACDFZ painter_k_Page_002thm.jpg
2afa6d5bbadfa90ae8f5957ec692728a
072c747d60f7f855b2ca6ae173581df0a9fe8015
20411 F20101118_AACDHC painter_k_Page_057.QC.jpg
df0ff7e571703e13ebeee4baed73eddc
5565dcb7bafd8565a691dab43cb312745880b4fa
6259 F20101118_AACDGO painter_k_Page_025thm.jpg
138710e6b7a10844137b04d62512bf9b
2d1b62d977d8994949169db95c8a14d86ad95338
5729 F20101118_AACDHD painter_k_Page_057thm.jpg
500798acebe259e8dbd4397e3867e178
3f7d839804c363786f1977dd9f7f45afa8406dd6
22905 F20101118_AACDGP painter_k_Page_026.QC.jpg
74680a8ef1bec0b688ca029bc5c84a4f
d20f1259503694e8092b45df8b0b19280de03739
23727 F20101118_AACDHE painter_k_Page_062.QC.jpg
ff01de1a89a9b22d25966b376d0b2cb6
f1c93ee8e89912bf1cb120b3887f3e304e59291f
23575 F20101118_AACDHF painter_k_Page_063.QC.jpg
82adede4c37a17a0c714e105b7c5418a
0f0c7a1b28cec277144b483db2cf7cc23555d11e
28602 F20101118_AACDGQ painter_k_Page_028.QC.jpg
400b0421e2bdd37fb1af11dfaa5f0750
e50a0827f848a1d7967c77c803259737c81f113a
3878 F20101118_AACDHG painter_k_Page_066thm.jpg
fb764ea9a19ac7b36ff2bb4bc409771b
e7ff24db1fd49c7d326974a2467cb27bebbfb555
7096 F20101118_AACDGR painter_k_Page_028thm.jpg
cce1319ac3e4e7f8432027ba472fc2e2
85faa816c4196763bb0f91f6d6d34d78bce06f03
1681 F20101118_AACDHH painter_k_Page_067thm.jpg
060406453f3dec03e0dab811dacd7dc0
5144e0257001f21f404b7113c09c6f48914e7f20
22196 F20101118_AACDGS painter_k_Page_031.QC.jpg
80937a2cfc841f1c12cc45a2067f1a6d
9b2ba4293a7e6c7f162de5e65ef13234c9a355ce
6202 F20101118_AACDHI painter_k_Page_068thm.jpg
7953775bfa68934348c6acf3eeaa9c9a
f9e11637e5e1d632ee95d6366923298b7801f00a
6183 F20101118_AACDGT painter_k_Page_031thm.jpg
7ab11d778b46e3803cf3fbe7f1c96096
1362f30c0c05334f27878288396e046512f5d98d
18994 F20101118_AACDHJ painter_k_Page_069.QC.jpg
ac6ddaa70125b56bed312adb93caa1cb
8ecfb42d2d2249f5e5cb22c6bc049100280258d4
6124 F20101118_AACDGU painter_k_Page_032thm.jpg
27dd710e2b4a06be2c614bfb8f097684
c35acc8ae57bb58a8b665a510226b0010da83220
5635 F20101118_AACDHK painter_k_Page_069thm.jpg
6c71d75341ea25ee1276d35471325a34
e7ae5aa465a86bc2394206e36d5f858d5f3bcdca
5819 F20101118_AACDGV painter_k_Page_033thm.jpg
ccc0db8950f11396cad142f7add6f560
86557ea13d91303964c060c4877fbeed339f7f3e
23698 F20101118_AACDHL painter_k_Page_070.QC.jpg
1f174c2035dfb00020c36e66af061a4e
b79046b4e1f6ef54534b1130e0aefae5062c45e0
5679 F20101118_AACDGW painter_k_Page_034thm.jpg
fd8717fe4485100e7395f38219e0b228
a8ce62a22d376dc42cc4878a4cfb18473e025b40
12571 F20101118_AACDIA painter_k_Page_092.QC.jpg
f16196a69d829bb7d910bb8b4692ac45
a64d7c2ca5ff0ef5bb29dedcfce18a4808af7485
4991 F20101118_AACDHM painter_k_Page_072thm.jpg
5b625097ea4deab79552f5a772852b69
e8f189916d5646a65614d040eb1efdf620017937
20758 F20101118_AACDGX painter_k_Page_035.QC.jpg
aab01cbfa676f88b0b6fdd4fadca61f6
1e0b7dd8a5ca05a9af2190603bae3d27ab004a88
22901 F20101118_AACDIB painter_k_Page_095.QC.jpg
3dde6f83328ed414eb24642bf46fa591
2cbe230e97979953959d2f59db9b9ea0f04cab42
22622 F20101118_AACDHN painter_k_Page_075.QC.jpg
b794d5ac68492449f8e8bfdaaa6cf51b
5def355c13c246131a5da15c9e8fa87ef302f745
5753 F20101118_AACDGY painter_k_Page_035thm.jpg
9cc1239635ebc3300c25ef633d82b457
6902d033aacd6fecf4e742a810b1267394e92a06
92142 F20101118_AACCFA painter_k_Page_006.jpg
857c579734fe5fd6d9a68c9992157fe2
2cbe6d1b7fc98711de2fdfb1dc99aba1f6260a00
22623 F20101118_AACDIC painter_k_Page_099.QC.jpg
4b4ad1c8d23a41d126a484935e01a94e
8f1b41656bb12a72df4adfc46cc6b4d75420ec7d
6294 F20101118_AACDHO painter_k_Page_075thm.jpg
52716ea46eb79a50eceecfcfaadd65cd
deb114b42bbdd063a6022f0b496ae6fc8172f87f
14027 F20101118_AACDGZ painter_k_Page_037.QC.jpg
f011e0daa38623c7b6beafcedba0b965
6cf3f9c89c93cdecd272661cc498d4fb33e428b4
69335 F20101118_AACCFB painter_k_Page_053.jpg
4dce3d47a0c91ed86c9378b51823da44
facc97876d125b2614138624cbb1b69bf0c63c44
23743 F20101118_AACDID painter_k_Page_100.QC.jpg
10c49bb3468825e0fde0da631446f6ca
0198a020847208275626f1bb37af6a2cbe3cf3aa
6601 F20101118_AACDHP painter_k_Page_076thm.jpg
fbccf1fc294c6584b4922e060b31c6cf
ecc6d28ed90fa7164bed170ad459c6b5848169d7
74785 F20101118_AACCFC painter_k_Page_052.jpg
c35f9f495c2acdb775bec543cd8e8372
3fdfa223a43bce81db46dcd9f60ceaaaa5b3a2bb
24016 F20101118_AACDIE painter_k_Page_102.QC.jpg
03111747c560b85a0a89008c9ae752e5
b157c6d1c3d18d6cf864aca1e192d0a055f648d6
21037 F20101118_AACDHQ painter_k_Page_078.QC.jpg
57aeb0b54b25b6142dff499cb7b8e13f
d04ad8d697c14adabd0cc9e34c25a974540bb95d
72026 F20101118_AACCFD painter_k_Page_014.jpg
27c9ce74ba6ad3b8e1762501bdad1b14
87332fbf2585b24f6a2b6fa6a866e027958c9a69
24405 F20101118_AACDIF painter_k_Page_104.QC.jpg
aa96c660a1f9e728a8afcfe63bf3b363
13857232b532b1f9d98a228e792488af3d5a10fa
21576 F20101118_AACCFE painter_k_Page_017.QC.jpg
cf31ecd107c4f59583f527e0caa2faf3
30d6b49c702e96fb306da667487cca53a3db82f9
6562 F20101118_AACDIG painter_k_Page_104thm.jpg
0ddc35de27d4ea5f9feba7474098314c
7c5f1763b44d410c447e48c5f38ddf7bfb46d879
6008 F20101118_AACDHR painter_k_Page_078thm.jpg
ea9107699ac0bfa67436eb04f15bded6
00500d8784b1effb761dc24805f36da42d7f8146
4373 F20101118_AACCFF painter_k_Page_092thm.jpg
fcbf9141155008e68576296a5fa5073c
0eacc8061faf093f42552daf7711e3c794c1c4ac
27636 F20101118_AACDIH painter_k_Page_105.QC.jpg
0a46d4d7020a7b2ed880095ad14d5523
5257a7d4a9e8302cd1028cbd311e5b09c1e7fb7a
19684 F20101118_AACCEQ painter_k_Page_003.QC.jpg
08b572aa90cf56130b3c0e1ed1f2d470
003c52c4828a8bd593469f44228bd4c11ea72498
7418 F20101118_AACDHS painter_k_Page_079thm.jpg
b5f4bec8ca65b3c2750d25b50f51e94e
0f8b49c17cfb41077484acef58a51d115cfc3976
F20101118_AACCFG painter_k_Page_101.tif
3e4dcf22f90e7457dad91bcdd0c0265f
db3906a154235b614679f35c8f14f552a0157b2c
26805 F20101118_AACDII painter_k_Page_107.QC.jpg
8058219767d9c499431edf6f0afd6471
1a4e73c18384094c8bbb9f71a6cb7281cd0cb7ce
73005 F20101118_AACCER painter_k_Page_028.pro
2346293c2c230f8e0367e15e8317da8c
f6cfc3fb1ff4a35824d1f1e0a93e93da38752bb5
19911 F20101118_AACDHT painter_k_Page_080.QC.jpg
04872b1b2cfc783099392dfcec2d8638
23d109642138ab59f90fab51b7cebc16b41b756c
41600 F20101118_AACCFH painter_k_Page_012.pro
15d7b975eb59c78d9b4deeea1f30c15a
17a9af01ea49cdac6b9d3756d0d492bd00f62fe4
9718 F20101118_AACDIJ painter_k_Page_110.QC.jpg
64833cfe98da62cbdc9e6d5e4d7adddf
f7cceee70c052085ac7c665d18c8fd812bf12c78
50736 F20101118_AACCES painter_k_Page_062.pro
fcf0bc800b635411f9157ca0276302ca
74c51e07143d1f8c35c57f4877f0e8c8e2daf544
6186 F20101118_AACDHU painter_k_Page_083thm.jpg
c8ccc6d9da65ca000556b59d0296868e
f3a415fd184afc52566055ef9c411fc7b21b6196
623742 F20101118_AACCFI painter_k_Page_091.jp2
f6b81bc0775ff3ceef2becbac07f1952
f9029987bd4e5827291498789ced88d136ab3717
128556 F20101118_AACDIK UFE0015301_00001.mets
33d0e65f0529adb0d95121cb38798f0c
e45d36fb1e7c430a0aca30eb2caaca93955f9cbb
48894 F20101118_AACCET painter_k_Page_091.jpg
63fdec0d956747b2f5184307e7fda4bd
9540c22e88d0dbfd8073314050e2e658cd3aa81e
16492 F20101118_AACDHV painter_k_Page_084.QC.jpg
59adf48205edffc211425a275f82e1f1
a70e564a966ae84c9adae1f157b18ea11b5d194d
23495 F20101118_AACCFJ painter_k_Page_097.QC.jpg
d955581dbdfa158fb1a25147c4c75e7d
bca3615d2f81a4c04f2b65ab2f9a3a908b2c4579
103623 F20101118_AACCEU painter_k_Page_071.jp2
9b7e3faf0cbd4ccc843c8777e2913531
d447254dfb4877bae536862d96d318f6648665d6
21716 F20101118_AACDHW painter_k_Page_086.QC.jpg
156b29a06a5504a0542b927020b5c838
52943d37bf421f8667014d1b96f55f2be148be22
6219 F20101118_AACCFK painter_k_Page_024thm.jpg
15200355802c2123a340a4ee3e4828a5
b4943f3478546faa33e3e852be45e1badfaa781e
49797 F20101118_AACCEV painter_k_Page_095.pro
6b6aec0f83bd29899af441fb5e07e1b1
5c0ba36dfa19a0bd8fecddaa01a05813982c2003
4690 F20101118_AACDHX painter_k_Page_087thm.jpg
6fddb634f13aecf17b7bb44060ad85a9
1371bcd482d6e6f56ba9007470e9927c43853bc9
1876 F20101118_AACCFL painter_k_Page_056thm.jpg
529a0c0e8700fd75ed1aa95f1b84a653
d6353328a9ed947733b7959da8f7f3dffba95a93
F20101118_AACCEW painter_k_Page_056.tif
23600794ab7be3d5cefcdf99b756949a
a8279d0b276f121b1a26ef632285f00348526ad2
4240 F20101118_AACDHY painter_k_Page_088thm.jpg
21707d7d29f4f9c67095ef6c7bedd24b
138e8db1b785e17b7dec76a982e633fba53c5059
7056 F20101118_AACCFM painter_k_Page_061thm.jpg
872dfa13813c04b7fe09b8c6e4da5fe8
5e2171f6273944c752e6c6cae287ae3b60228934
6311 F20101118_AACCEX painter_k_Page_022thm.jpg
3d2b3eb6cdf199544d8d683dbc89c9e2
0318083f8dc1017a7602e206905055e5bcbcfb28
14856 F20101118_AACDHZ painter_k_Page_089.QC.jpg
be19677145ca681f103d58144976af85
747ae16b9dfc830d2978d5b489a2b856deb9e0a7
34972 F20101118_AACCGA painter_k_Page_038.pro
e35f001f5ec9370f7f53baf84f93afc7
0c7df691042c788db48f703c3703cd422183068b
22528 F20101118_AACCFN painter_k_Page_047.pro
d73721ba886a963435c193d2be01d792
b06cdfa5003c68359680a38ce82dd2172a80a52d
109999 F20101118_AACCEY painter_k_Page_055.jp2
2df0096e4b1158a46f0328b83ad4e611
e5b38b686abd4a9ba5099df97190bab0951bffbe
25893 F20101118_AACCGB painter_k_Page_108.QC.jpg
20367018cd22123fe1e5f246ae0ab835
ca6e0f723c6ccb5cf1c4affb8bdb47498d4f19a5
49485 F20101118_AACCFO painter_k_Page_021.pro
5dc721bf66f19c252c16a9a8971e214b
334ad9c5b48e0f7f6716d1592a63383ca39054f0
1575 F20101118_AACCEZ painter_k_Page_068.txt
904f810a743015a370c8a24d917930ac
9c9b0132939cb0fbe0e1eaaefc550fd1263fe84b
55886 F20101118_AACCGC painter_k_Page_104.pro
5dcfab7f7c406e5324bcdff18f18b4d7
a0a4a0e0394df47bbc94cb6418bc10c7245de638
22182 F20101118_AACCFP painter_k_Page_093.QC.jpg
e71a330c28b32e5a781854da885357e9
2656726ad780ea5cbd4234c279ff8fa7009740c9
F20101118_AACCGD painter_k_Page_064.tif
ca89d772fe4fdbd9ef1d348be2b9f40a
6939ead49adc313a72ae59534adbabfd51cef133
F20101118_AACCGE painter_k_Page_086.tif
5b52d0c47f742bd1629d1c2f5b9e8437
cea6eab3bd3942df7d7ebf0895c1087b330d60e7
F20101118_AACCFQ painter_k_Page_055.tif
fac9fd445a2cfced80731a30cef8c5f3
b5f2f4f00e150434ef270e2ff5c9925db33701e6
93845 F20101118_AACCGF painter_k_Page_016.jp2
0d21468ec0e241a6692de028377cb5a9
71131f00a83c81b6886091a3b9fae6990e9d78c5
22117 F20101118_AACCFR painter_k_Page_059.QC.jpg
f02d8455876704a3038252ff6065284f
ff0c575bdfe161487b9e5f34b874e5d5c9b80877
9752 F20101118_AACCGG painter_k_Page_007.pro
c5589a9aefc61e221fe973b881e62c85
adf7d53543f7fd196e0bd9854ad845296b9fbace
675 F20101118_AACCFS painter_k_Page_110.txt
74c9940707e42edb53b6b3904563ec68
07d0fd9dac2d6289ac08231a835e6ae4cee08d0b
1724 F20101118_AACCGH painter_k_Page_007thm.jpg
0cc3a1274d703e76f67ee44a0eb542b0
3cf57d3a0110361d8cdb534d967b15b2fa3b52c9
106412 F20101118_AACCFT painter_k_Page_006.pro
01553071d89b8c6879b4b15a704566d4
370146680ebc7c3907609064a3429a80ff39032e
68115 F20101118_AACCGI painter_k_Page_026.jpg
3269adc5e27ec465f42317cacd75494f
ebd1ad035de2b1a79fdc1f656ba08b9a7b5633dd
826942 F20101118_AACCGJ painter_k_Page_048.jp2
d96f1784ad6240c6c8114b03e506d951
d8a746cae1ec4a65f0f6e3562656a01aceeae0ac
21153 F20101118_AACCFU painter_k_Page_073.QC.jpg
375d9195629556f495ce4e70f05900ec
05cdf38c77a1dda265ed9334d24e3af8152bbc4c
F20101118_AACCGK painter_k_Page_048thm.jpg
806aa8bf91682510bd189226271d082e
f1c9230fa77a5e2281d81587f2c980d1b1505103
73170 F20101118_AACCFV painter_k_Page_070.jpg
7efef489ffdefe319cc304d753b4f4a6
eb8c484dd708f59040a9184beb4b67180866a889
6382 F20101118_AACCGL painter_k_Page_058thm.jpg
1e2b1f9345a7dd4c01c89b40b45062c0
b523be57003b9563c92e93670bb1ac97c7a3b6f0
47797 F20101118_AACCFW painter_k_Page_093.pro
58b0f5cf6500dd81ff87f824eff3cd0a
795f446154ff220ed343b8e95b0a128300ef9dc9
150550 F20101118_AACCHA painter_k_Page_028.jp2
88abbe6c63957645d32faa951ba9999a
7c562f0bcb41bbb30d05eee4a259e07f5cb0f52b
F20101118_AACCGM painter_k_Page_095.tif
b6c7bd9bfa95c3317f96df1a457c852a
f3fc6c16c1452520e25a0f79154c7211f0fd4d3d
22848 F20101118_AACCFX painter_k_Page_058.QC.jpg
d0f1ac75357632bf403704d46b323e19
521320cf8757794e81db6a7d8e2d229d0c23d7ca
107398 F20101118_AACCHB painter_k_Page_101.jp2
5b59064cf7614d5124343770cd0edb7e
c71e824bf20cb013164bf3ff17bb48ccf1fa8fb5
12029 F20101118_AACCGN painter_k_Page_066.QC.jpg
90de25ff0006494e352e432811f6c8ec
671725679561d1223f30c2d1c6f6a7c797b55da2
F20101118_AACCFY painter_k_Page_020.tif
fd731a1fd4561f7cc36cf0d0b79730eb
11b61210054bf01b091c5419fe57e2fd9792d3e9
108658 F20101118_AACCHC painter_k_Page_025.jp2
5bb91479c93db071ca6e0c675f6e166e
95c1b726233794785a4b865c2f768f1f1093ea87
F20101118_AACCGO painter_k_Page_018.tif
cd9df51cef6e8327a8916f13129962d8
8eb8bbd1bedccde2332094b5da2acde12fffc496
109356 F20101118_AACCFZ painter_k_Page_063.jp2
a647f5387a9f81e6c332df9ce03d1ebb
72e5f53c9df392388bd3f559faea84f118c3bac5
46223 F20101118_AACCHD painter_k_Page_037.jpg
de34278ed835961d0b8c701467d71574
05ebde0119e87a1dec6eb28aff792d5327671a3b
1705 F20101118_AACCGP painter_k_Page_010.txt
eda9c8477b1d4b2e051a0d1d53ce5891
137282c04bccb61b8e7107eacdcf4b692302d879
63935 F20101118_AACCHE painter_k_Page_040.jpg
b8d7cb30adbcb5183a8f31efdd15150d
702f1e4dff2f07d0642e5317cdf340785a9c7607
1629 F20101118_AACCGQ painter_k_Page_037.txt
787cb3a0f3bf83092c11a7c4562e615e
6f4aa4cc9c7c2bf97cdba5a94229f5bee3fac623
1903 F20101118_AACCHF painter_k_Page_071.txt
22e50c2fab254a06cf65326c19da5e4d
19416efed74264009c1330e526c88d613f137d64
107594 F20101118_AACCHG painter_k_Page_050.jp2
57d0c43da6d79f2ce29326d7597cde85
3e004db8f8feb6c525f1d566bf1c0bb4d16299ed
20131 F20101118_AACCGR painter_k_Page_048.QC.jpg
b1e448c63cacca674ad494e4a214d3a5
e2210561a266b4bfbac73944a0ca89d398460784
2063 F20101118_AACCHH painter_k_Page_096.txt
69bcaf7bd8f1476b0742fdb00e3b745b
02bb0d12edf0495746a39b7940c81e7cef3c8775
897462 F20101118_AACCGS painter_k_Page_084.jp2
8a23aeb9348a3b6c0bdbc349105cad5d
bc16e5f80a3261092f816b2410bffd5493bad4f9
5480 F20101118_AACCHI painter_k_Page_045thm.jpg
246e3ad0330c67dbaa38505647b2906c
732d5d553789b637be49bdf6ee7d62ec771a3185
107874 F20101118_AACCGT painter_k_Page_094.jp2
3b8db89bbb70cdd025591526e0ab9bfe
9669c5ae94cc69aa9e089512744d1aecf5743be5
16281 F20101118_AACCHJ painter_k_Page_030.QC.jpg
0e6e2599c8b6608f5ba0ce013ff4dc8d
0ca411b3f2d2327b58a0008a66e9566817bc0b84
62784 F20101118_AACCGU painter_k_Page_105.pro
3d8575b3326f05a0713c66c14596707c
4e01adfbb1d036ad6b4f3ed026089e7e88999bf8
F20101118_AACCHK painter_k_Page_106.tif
d160f16d016ef5889a5ca6727bc0ea2b
1d92ce2d14a1bd89f6c28310fc165f32c33e7864
102792 F20101118_AACCGV painter_k_Page_059.jp2
0cd3ac093834370686d3c007d6acaa44
8c4ccc310dc90b97222dc40ea172487db6a2dca8
134596 F20101118_AACCHL painter_k_Page_108.jp2
878f5337cc7f436b87884f4ae518132a
272ef4c0d2655e1b6d0aadd58341dd466b7722c1
1051956 F20101118_AACCGW painter_k_Page_080.jp2
58cafbec7e0e999abd11ea3e4ff07c2e
4b933e38ad9afa8cc37d62ac08ffc61763a51dcd
6723 F20101118_AACCHM painter_k_Page_096thm.jpg
d683f124556dfa51e9bc7a1498b6f1a7
523aa333ff98032ac25749cf020eee0ff1a4ef1e
1797 F20101118_AACCGX painter_k_Page_098.txt
cad3e436f8adfa817a626874dd7d011e
a3ca7e6c56ec1b7cce5e6335b3597c2a3ce2992a
82447 F20101118_AACCIA painter_k_Page_015.jp2
df4f999bb1f77128ab321f1a2ea9d4d6
c5c816ce212cb27f765b5e0e6baf062b89d1cf70
22751 F20101118_AACCHN painter_k_Page_050.QC.jpg
e7e26ea77f0bdf61ab4d5699aedc0edb
1ac3f1cb21161df9dc644f3aeda3febbafb06a79
1905 F20101118_AACCGY painter_k_Page_082.txt
5af026a53a6be5606410b4422e5c5feb
9003a0505cec4e2187a905c7c8bf3076aaf0fca0
532 F20101118_AACCIB painter_k_Page_001.txt
6e9f0824d60222edfe129ad681d84425
d625d410ed5fa1c4b1547aa977f0949f75e20585
405 F20101118_AACCHO painter_k_Page_088.txt
15729957491e428cf426f5451bdd9c63
f39b6d34ae0c941b966b598109673a23a6e5cb83
5665 F20101118_AACCGZ painter_k_Page_098thm.jpg
44c72d5373421ea51eff2985bfce0b51
a092b7d7412647d6b2156c46f9e082555b46d84c
65555 F20101118_AACCIC painter_k_Page_073.jpg
2b323703604ca65018734646792f8bbe
a6aa2c4c9aa971bb9942eca08caf22b8fb2d2f06
6166 F20101118_AACCHP painter_k_Page_023thm.jpg
232d710f6816a26ab4625da0b2f3babe
ab5ddb9f306568218c6d47e67fcc080ed61bb9af
79176 F20101118_AACCID painter_k_Page_072.jp2
68f1a5d2631b815367de38e7f14b7b8a
ab1dcac84e023483494d214da80fcedd71660825
F20101118_AACCHQ painter_k_Page_077.tif
59386c2c2674b6f5cc43ee5b78712447
55f10efad4e13e84629907c5680446f2d7c5ca00
F20101118_AACCIE painter_k_Page_009.tif
18b79f20fea1edda0bc86c9a172ee80a
6a5ee00b68cf658dad7814b08cbcd14f52d3a443
6028 F20101118_AACCHR painter_k_Page_018thm.jpg
bb877bd75d27b8b041d8696be59a205e
b0cd456c28bb2bb74c1d2e82a129173d440f2ff2
6115 F20101118_AACCIF painter_k_Page_040thm.jpg
fefd148d74d8b93bff71f60539d0c514
dbc0e211a32898948f35567b71b2222f57e32f8b
1916 F20101118_AACCIG painter_k_Page_051.txt
4d92ef09f04a7ee77e19ab1e655eb4ae
27fa0ade912f7a9f99b21d0770ec981fafebc5ad
5024 F20101118_AACCHS painter_k_Page_043thm.jpg
2887c578027057fc01b0cffa3cf3a03d
07815fd718d825f0c48aca8a57f3c8211ef1e2e0
F20101118_AACCIH painter_k_Page_085.tif
116d800cf3485f14481e7f227e81f5b2
6050a2b3dceba7a2d267ac825d3e9244fc896121
53094 F20101118_AACCHT painter_k_Page_043.pro
84b4aac182fcdd0ec5be4543df41b8e8
099e1b24ac61186eeab5da05c2abf1165c7294c5
1760 F20101118_AACCII painter_k_Page_090.txt
ad20c73b621e94809de1d3da84725406
dc86d3e6ff9a51b2cab92b94f1e2db3df0955913
108104 F20101118_AACCHU painter_k_Page_060.jp2
4680be4b9b4a9c00cc94bbc9def2ccca
33357fccc1aa9936104b386543492cb5fac1da1a
43271 F20101118_AACCIJ painter_k_Page_073.pro
8bc3a769a50fdf62d9d58b9e54452cf7
ac4c3aa54f1cc2a7b22937dcb3c0eb8c98fbca40
F20101118_AACCHV painter_k_Page_019.txt
d63d90f47ad813e3f2e086407f4c6c3e
7982876dfd10f7192b09ec3148c5cf80034e2955
6428 F20101118_AACCIK painter_k_Page_081thm.jpg
19e5afc47ba9e80077315eb0f9db3688
fdba53c8536d78dcacbb64f717e453371981b0b4
48550 F20101118_AACCHW painter_k_Page_058.pro
60da864526489908cc33ddf52e33def3
b16c4fd0719772b1c943f818b69d2f3d884fde24
F20101118_AACCIL painter_k_Page_105.tif
e276ea811d0839acea8a23ff851a3b5b
f02888266a0862adda6d138f6610012929feac8e
45585 F20101118_AACCHX painter_k_Page_017.pro
6eae3598abd617e69678776fb98454fc
7853dd41f0b1bf025cc4ed9974923dd81f02e2cf
F20101118_AACCJA painter_k_Page_001thm.jpg
17e421b9bdeb00da3508b9338c0ad1b2
2dc54742aaa9f5c9265ba2d335859f81df4a262d
F20101118_AACCIM painter_k_Page_030.tif
91cdd034e6d5a1bb7e45001769023a3d
2c71032753b90d391f9820141110369bb6c26840
54091 F20101118_AACCHY painter_k_Page_009.pro
e725a09e2797ff37d7e172d358191282
2545d05473c2b7b2ec76709341bb3880dfc86f37
71479 F20101118_AACCJB painter_k_Page_062.jpg
334120f4d8414e7481af52147fa9e661
a17217c96a0080170cf67722ad72608ce0af8a09
F20101118_AACCIN painter_k_Page_026.tif
5ee3052d5d3e7827ab89172ff253758d
ebfaacccab8e9a721d314593492d503fc2114dbe
6182 F20101118_AACCHZ painter_k_Page_093thm.jpg
cab4476d9ee97f49de6244d98bb08e9d
3a6e4d754f597bee15c88cf963794acd7655d3f4
6386 F20101118_AACCJC painter_k_Page_082thm.jpg
f5f1e0b76788eea861687ae12d19e836
3c23dbfa5ddb1ca4aebc25b2949ac806a151e958
8273 F20101118_AACCIO painter_k_Page_001.QC.jpg
b605480aa480279e81403f88490a302d
344f33844577d6f9a13f400c17f15e61d1cd9f38
F20101118_AACCJD painter_k_Page_007.tif
318464eab25ad34c232a39a17f9699d2
63f209d39e1e2885c51c36706bfc5f9c57b44edc
52626 F20101118_AACCIP painter_k_Page_052.pro
6bb7d19be8b888038728d23112658045
a0bf7d9d237b0d5e68e189705bc3e68a9ca8eb78
F20101118_AACCJE painter_k_Page_006.jp2
332d982af25dcd1b085a38f426370911
6bd40885b6e2cd2a8285838aa02716b270f75b4c
1816 F20101118_AACCIQ painter_k_Page_040.txt
84c938ab0e0b9470e6e2e2b02a6bc69c
bb8734c6077c504b87e8f2b69396a7dfd5f7a19a
1668 F20101118_AACCJF painter_k_Page_034.txt
f3ed3cfee0a30c0d989d44346e92eaaf
91b48cf267d6a1f6ec6e66990980d058e8f84dce
73810 F20101118_AACCIR painter_k_Page_102.jpg
52bcda52ab3f9bc42f5988f66dd6f961
d50ef7e022f5db78de617e34b021814833eedde6
109695 F20101118_AACCJG painter_k_Page_095.jp2
83923d239fd57669f72756554efcf026
c06b34630ad0005bdc23343f8a25a8bee7d98cce
64933 F20101118_AACCIS painter_k_Page_078.jpg
44a8efcbfae9de463f3907a5e21e374b
cf95992d17ae30ba2d3085b30a4a252c45b6789d
F20101118_AACCJH painter_k_Page_015.tif
a09822118957cfe71368236d5b75ed28
eec85c9fe33543c195f0ff70a3bb27a1f4fb5bf7
6020 F20101118_AACCJI painter_k_Page_080thm.jpg
3cc46addf8d315edd52be5f0c06f44e4
28fe5eddcf91d95fa4359516d3962cfcc5984cdd
69055 F20101118_AACCIT painter_k_Page_054.jpg
549f302525647bd57a0216134ef87d52
5fd5c178c621aee666d66320a1954b74768a6179
44373 F20101118_AACCJJ painter_k_Page_078.pro
5151b14e853a30e32b57872be5b886ae
981469f2a871cb6c368afc92728c56273bb10b17
118 F20101118_AACCIU painter_k_Page_002.txt
e4ab813beac25467f347c1ffa0be781a
e0ed135a044bd7ec07d950ec1b35510d9e34aec8
48492 F20101118_AACCJK painter_k_Page_051.pro
a3e9e5a2008cdd6c3dba73867f5c2725
92b32b6fc8183900284b581558256bd1c28d9bac
F20101118_AACCIV painter_k_Page_011.tif
87b305927c525fabcc3d9adbf858a801
2e0ec5f862206f7a76b7b7b89f901e4e827758bd
6157 F20101118_AACCJL painter_k_Page_077thm.jpg
9fc7c9c77cb23cdebf36eec96f7b1a3f
7b4194cca4130274c9cd9a23638898f970a62982
112391 F20101118_AACCIW painter_k_Page_070.jp2
7b57c7b18521bbeb8a02deb41cc5ba6d
36a6e2b5cefde73f18034c3fb839a1666d11d187
611628 F20101118_AACCKA painter_k_Page_047.jp2
3e6a645134e70347ae607f797f74ac12
194b38b87ef32c8b3120918a519fe0a242ef2d1d
4738 F20101118_AACCJM painter_k_Page_084thm.jpg
0a0d911404cf6d14bd2dd1f8f99f79d6
fad7a48c9743dbc587ca7186546a3edc4b0e37b2
471 F20101118_AACCIX painter_k_Page_067.txt
c631d03089629e1fc9592fd751a5b3ea
a9580995973f6b58fec84383678f79f7d2d22a8c
F20101118_AACCKB painter_k_Page_070thm.jpg
03603733b918ca3ff00da3a49d18e3ce
8e8e6cacb6afaf25ae4709549a87a071c1a3026a
39759 F20101118_AACCJN painter_k_Page_090.pro
ca9830646ff3e248b808d48c3bcfa45e
71d93e021a12e148c7b3de26310cafdd2e605197
40887 F20101118_AACCIY painter_k_Page_057.pro
ff6e8ea6c242565f80c6d1e84ee8fd0a
ebffceb1e6c1acb21be17e4f38b4bb3f7c828461



PAGE 1

EFFECTIVENESS OF A NON-GOVE RNMENTAL ORGANIZATION (NGO) EXTENSION PROGRAM FOR FOREST CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE AGROFORESTRY IN SOUTHERN BAHIA, BRAZIL By KATHLEEN R. PAINTER A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Kathleen R. Painter

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Robert Buschbacher, for inviting me to collaborate with him on this research. Dr. Buschbacher began working with Jupar while working for WWF and has been supporting Jupars efforts for more than 10 years. He is well known by both Jupar staff and community members as a respected conservationist and an old friend. His long-standing commitment to this project contributed greatly to the success of my research. I would also like to thank the rest of the Buschbacher family, Margareth, Thomas and Katharine, for spending part of their fa mily vacation assisting me in the field. I would like to thank the Jupar staff, Lu is Souto, Mera Costa, Barbara de Carvalho Vasconcelos, Neusa Nevis Sousa and Lucilene Mendes dos Santos, for finding the time to introduce me to their work, their communities, and the day-to-day realities in southern Bahia. All of them are exemplary people a nd work tirelessly toward the betterment of rural communities. Most importantly, I would like to thank the many Bahian families who participated in this research and shared their time, st ories, and enthusiasm with me. I would especially like to thank Francisco Amancio dos Santos (Chico), Francisco dos Santos (Panca) Andre Jesus da Conceio (Catixa), and Maurilho Jose da Silva for welcoming me to stay at their homes while I carried out this research. Thanks go also to UF graduate student Kye Epps for sharing her home in Ilhus and her knowledge of doing research in Bahia.

PAGE 4

iv Back at the University of Florida, I thank Dr. Karen Kainer and Dr. Peter Hildebrand for serving as my committee memb ers and helping to improve my research proposal and this thesis. Special tha nks go to Karen for making possible my collaboration with Bob. Dr. Chris Baraloto deserves a huge tha nk you for assisting with the statistical analyses. I would like to thank Amy Daniels, Lucas Fortini, Dr. Mike Binford and Dr. Jane Southworth for technical suggestions on the remo te sensing component of this research. Finally, I thank the following UF graduate students for their friendship and support: Cara Rockwell, Meghan McGinty, Tom Hens haw, Maria DiGiano, Mandy Baily, Julie Clingerman, Miriam Wyman, Lin Cassidy and Brian Daley. This research was made possible by f unding from the UF School of Natural Resources and Environment, the UF Tropi cal Conservation and Development Program, and St. Marys College of Maryland.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 EFFECTIVENESS OF AN NGO EX TENSION PROGRAM FOR FOREST CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE AGROFORESTRY IN TWO COMMUNITIES IN SOUTHERN BAHIA, BRAZIL................................................5 Introduction................................................................................................................... 5 Agroforestry Adoption..........................................................................................6 Integrated Conservation and Development Projects...........................................10 Research questions..............................................................................................12 Study Area...........................................................................................................13 Jupar Project History.........................................................................................15 Selection of Study Sites.......................................................................................18 Methods......................................................................................................................20 Description of Study Sites...................................................................................20 Fortaleza.......................................................................................................20 Lagoa Santa..................................................................................................21 Field Methods......................................................................................................22 Data Analysis.......................................................................................................24 Participation.................................................................................................24 Use of Agroecological Practices..................................................................27 Multiple Regressions....................................................................................28 Results........................................................................................................................ .29 Comparison of communities................................................................................29 Regression Analysis of participation and family attributes on program implementation................................................................................................32 Fortaleza.......................................................................................................32 Lagoa Santa..................................................................................................32

PAGE 6

vi Use of Agricultural Practices...............................................................................33 Fortaleza.......................................................................................................33 Lagoa Santa..................................................................................................34 Land Cover..........................................................................................................35 Discussion...................................................................................................................37 Agroecological Practices.....................................................................................37 Income.................................................................................................................40 Land Cover..........................................................................................................41 Success of the Jupar Agroecology Project.........................................................42 3 CONSERVATION AND AGRARIAN REFORM IN SOUTHERN BAHIA, THE CASE OF CASCATA................................................................................................46 Introduction.................................................................................................................46 Jupar and Land Reform.....................................................................................47 Cascata, a Land Reform Settlement....................................................................50 Site Description...................................................................................................51 Methods......................................................................................................................53 Results........................................................................................................................ .53 Participation.........................................................................................................53 Adoption of Agroecological Practices.................................................................57 Land Use..............................................................................................................57 Discussion...................................................................................................................58 Agroforestry and Conservation in Cascata..........................................................58 Future Directions for Jupar................................................................................60 4 EFFECTS OF AN NGO EXTENSI ON PROGRAM ON LAND USE CHANGE ON SMALL FARM PROPERTIES IN THE ATLANTIC FOREST OF SOUTHERN BAHIA.................................................................................................62 Introduction.................................................................................................................62 Study Region.......................................................................................................66 Fortaleza.......................................................................................................66 The Atlantic Forest of Southern Bahia.........................................................67 Remote sensing studies in the Atlantic Forest.............................................70 Methods......................................................................................................................71 Interviews............................................................................................................71 Participatory Mapping and Training Points........................................................72 Image Processing.................................................................................................72 Results........................................................................................................................ .75 Land Use Classifications.....................................................................................75 Comparison with Interview Data.........................................................................80 Discussion...................................................................................................................82 Remote Sensing Analysis....................................................................................82 Comparison with Interview Data.........................................................................84 Jupar Program Goals..........................................................................................85 Directions for Further Study................................................................................86

PAGE 7

vii 5 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................87 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................93 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................99

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Description of target agroecological practices.........................................................17 2-2 Interview content......................................................................................................24 2-3 Jupar sponsored activities and corresponding participation scores........................26 2-4 Descriptive statistics by groups for two communities. P=Participants, FP = Former Participants, NP = Non-Participants............................................................30 2-5 Multiple regression models for Fortaleza.................................................................32 2-6 Multiple regression models for Lagoa Santa............................................................33 3-1 Descriptive statistics by groups for three communities...........................................55

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Location of study sites. Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa are shown in red....................19 2-2 Range of participation s cores in Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa................................... 27 2-3 Component plot for principal compon ents analysis. Component one orders practices from ecologically destruct ive to ecologically beneficial..........................28 2-4 Adoption of agroecological practices in Fortaleza...................................................34 2-5 Adoption of agroecological practices in Lagoa Santa..............................................35 2-6 Land cover distribution in Fo rtaleza, as reported by farmers..................................35 3-1 Range of participation scores in Fortaleza, Lagoa Santa, and Cascata....................54 3-2 Adoption of agroecological practices in Cascata.....................................................57 4-1 Location of study site. The blue box i ndicates the Southern Bahia region with the original Atlantic Forest shown in yellow and remaining forest in green ..........68 4-2 Location of the Central and Serra do Mar Corridors................................................69 4-3 Property sketch created by a community member...................................................73 4-4 Land Use Classifica tion for Fortaleza, 1986............................................................76 4-5 Land use classification for Fortaleza, 2001..............................................................77 4-7 Land use change in Fortaleza on properties owned by non-participants participants in the Jupar project, and within the community forest reserve...........80 4-8 Distribution of land uses in Fortal eza as measured by classification of 2001 Landsat data..............................................................................................................81 4-9 Distribution of land uses in Foratl eza as reported by farmers interviewed in 2005..........................................................................................................................8 1

PAGE 10

x Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science EFFECTIVENESS OF A NON-GOVE RNMENTAL ORGANIZATION (NGO) EXTENSION PROGRAM FOR FOREST CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE AGROFORESTRY IN SOUTHERN BAHIA, BRAZIL By Kathleen R. Painter August 2006 Chair: Karen Kainer Major Department: Interdisciplinary Ecology This study provides an evaluation of the Jupar Agroecology Project an integrated conservation and development project (ICDP), as a strategy for sustainable agriculture and forest conservation in th e vicinity of a protected area. The Jupar project was launched in 1995 in partnership with WWF, and provided extension services to 35 communities. Jupar set the following program goals: implementation of target agroecological practices, or ganic certification, increased family incomes, and maintenance of 30% of the community area in forest and 40% in agroforestry systems. This study addresses the following res earch questions: Are families that participated in the Jupar project meeting th ese goals? How do family dynamics and size of landholding influence project implementatio n? Are project results consistent in different types of communities? Three communities were selected for anal ysis. A total of 65 household interviews were conducted with particip ating and non-participating fa milies. GPS points and basic

PAGE 11

xi vegetation data for five land cover type s were collected for each household. A participation score was assessed for each family and multiple regressions were used to analyze the effect of par ticipation and other socioec onomic variables on program outcomes such as use of agroecological practices, farm income, and forest and agroforestry cover. For one community, analys is of Landsat imagery was used to verify land cover distributions a nd to assess change in land cover over time. Results of interview data show that participation in the Jupar program positively influences the implementation of agroecologi cal practices and farm income, but does not influence land cover distribution or the maintena nce of forest reserves by individuals. Successfully implemented agroecological practices included the use of organic fertilizers and composting, contour erosion ba rriers, diversificati on of agroforestry systems, and the elimination of burning and agrochemicals. For two of three communities, much of the forest cover was converted to agroforestry long before the Jupar project began. One community reported an average of 8% forest cover, and the second reporte d 35%, including a comm unity reserve. Many farmers maintain no forest reserve. The th ird community maintains 40% of its total area as a community-managed reserve. Analysis of Landsat data showed that the overall distribution of forest, agroforestry, and open areas remained almost constant between 1986 and 2001; however, forested areas increased on participants lots, indicating that participants may be more likely to allow forest regrowth to cr eate forest reserves.

PAGE 12

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION All around the world, conservationists have observed that long-term and large-scale conservation of endangered ecosystems will require the participation of their residents (Murniati et al. 2001; Schwartzman et al. 2000a; Schwartzman et al. 2000b). Conservation programs have used various stra tegies to enlist local participation in conservation efforts, including strategies fo r sustainable agricultu re, extraction of nontimber forest products, ecotourism, and payments for environmental services. Projects which include both a conservation component and an economic development component have come to be known as Integrated C onservation and Development Projects or ICDPs. ICDPs have been criticized for being e xpensive to implement and for focusing on development and producing too few tangible conservation results (Brandon et al. 1998; Brechin et al. 2002). A close examination of li terature on such projects, however, reveals that few ICPDs have been rigorously evalua ted. To understand the most effective ways to involve local people in c onservation efforts, it is important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of past projects as well as the results thes e projects have produced or failed to produce. This thesis developed out of the long -term collaboration between Dr. Robert Buschbacher and a small conservation NGO in Ilheus, Brazil, Jupar, Assessoria para o Desenvolvimento Agroecologico de Comunidades Rurais (Organization for Agroecological Development in Rural Communities), and the practical need for an

PAGE 13

2 evaluation of some of Jupars ongoing proj ects. Jupar works primarily with land reform communities, and also some traditional rural communities, throughout the Atlantic Forest of Southern Bahia. Land reform communities are communities established relatively recentl y, within the last 30 years, th rough a government land reform program which donates farmland to landless work ers. Traditional co mmunities also exist in this region. In these cases, land has b een passed down from father to sons for many generations. In 1995, Jupar began collaborating w ith WWF to promote diversified agroforestry, organic agriculture, and forest conservation in communities in the buffer zone of the Una Biological Rese rve. Concrete outcome goals were set at the start of the project, including the impl ementation of organic agricultural practices and the maintenance of 30% of each communitys area in natural forest reserves and 40% in agroforestry systems. As with many conservation projects, funding constraints prevented any rigorous evaluation or monitori ng of the extent to which these outcome goals were met (Buschbacher in prep.). The Jupar project has been ongoing for mo re than 10 years and offers a suitable example for an in-depth analysis of the outcomes of a conservation and development project in a critical conservation area, the At lantic Forest. This research examines the success of the project at the level of individual families in several different communities. Household interviews were carried out in three communities, and a remote-sensing analysis of land cover change at the prope rty level was conducted in one of the three communities.

PAGE 14

3 This thesis is presented in three parts. Chapter 2 was written as an independent document, suitable for eventual publication. It focuses on the contribution of this research toward a better unders tanding of the function of integrated conservation and development projects in the buffer zones of protected areas, as well as innovation adoption by smallholders. Within this framework, chapter two describes the Jupar project in greater depth, incl uding its outcome goals, a nd presents interview data collected in two of the thr ee study communities, Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa. Fortaleza is a 30-year-old land reform settlement and La goa Santa is a traditional agricultural community that has been in place for many generations. Farmers in these communities produce a variety of products in mixed agro forestry systems, including rubber, cacao, cloves, palm fibers, and fruit. Both part icipating and non-partic ipating families were interviewed about their participation in the project, their use of the projects target agroecological practices, their land use patterns, including implementation of agroforestry and conservation of native forest s, and a number of socioeconomic variables which might affect their ability to meet the project goals. Chapter 3 is intended to complement Chapter 2 and to give readers an idea of Jupara future directions. Data was collect ed in a third community, Cascata, using the same methods presented in Chapter 2. Cascatas case is presented separately because this community is very different and not easily co mpared to the other two. Cascata is a new land reform community, about 8 years old, and entered the Jupar project more recently. The community is situated on a former cacao plantation, and rather than each family settling on an individual parc el of land, families live in a central area, with production areas located around the perimeter of the community. Farmers produce cacao almost

PAGE 15

4 exclusively. Each family is assigned a sm all parcel of cacao to harvest, but the processing and sale of cacao takes place coll ectively. This chapter focuses on Jupars participation in the agrarian land reform movement. Recently, Jupar has focused their efforts on such newer land reform communities, often on cacao estates, and work in these communities offers opportunities and challenges which are distinct from those found in older communities. Chapter 4 is also intended as an independe nt article suitable for publication. This chapter presents an analysis of land use ch ange in Fortaleza using Landsat imagery from 1986, before the implementation of the Jupar project, and 2001, the most recent image available. GPS points collected in the fiel d were used to identify areas of forest, agroforestry and forest regrowth, and cleare d areas such as annual crops or pasture. Maps provided by INCRA, the federal agency responsible for land reform, were used to identify individual properties within the co mmunity. Land use change on participants properties is compared with nonparticipants and former part icipants properties, and the community forest reserve area is also asse ssed. Land use observed on the imagery is compared to land use data collected through interviews. Chapter 5 presents a brief conclusion synt hesizing the results and conclusions of the three previous chapters.

PAGE 16

5 CHAPTER 2 EFFECTIVENESS OF AN NGO EX TENSION PROGRAM FOR FOREST CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE AGROFORESTRY IN TWO COMMUNITIES IN SOUTHERN BAHIA, BRAZIL Introduction In many developing countries, agriculture is the principal liv elihood of the rural poor, accounts for a large percentage of land use, and is probably the single most powerful influence on environmental quality (Scherr 2000). The interrelated themes of agricultural growth, environmental qualit y, and rural poverty a lleviation have been called the critical triangle of developmen t objectives (Vosti et al. 1997). As rural populations grow, pressure on the natural re source base increases, leading to both environmental degradation and declining f ood security and human health. This is especially true where pe oples access to land is limited to poor quality or environmentally fragile lands (Scherr 2000). The critical triangle becomes even more important in the regions surrounding protected areas in the tropics. Parks and reserves can preserve only a very small percentage of fragile or endangered ecos ystems, in the late 1990s, reserves encompassed around 5% of land worldwide, according to one estimate (Terborgh 1999). As Schwartzman et al. (2000b) point out, this small and often fragmented percentage is unlikely to conserve much biodiversity in the long term, and, as they state, the rest of the fore st is already inhabited. T hus efforts to protect more biodiversity than that contained in parks will depend on local people and their ability to prosper in and around protected areas on a sustainable basis.

PAGE 17

6 Working within this political and econo mic reality, projects have emerged to work with communities in the buffer zones of protected areas to improve natural resource management practices and inte nsify production systems in a way that increases incomes but directs use away from the core protected zone (Brechin et al. 2002; Murniati et al. 2001). These project s are known as Integrated Conservation and Development Projects, or ICDPs. The conservation component of an ICDP might include prot ecting forests or wildlife within a community, or avoiding the use of a nearby national park for hunting or extraction of res ources. The development component usually includes a production strategy to help improve the liv elihoods of the pa rticipants in an environmentally benign way. Developmen t projects often incl ude ecotourism or agroforestry. This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of an ICDP for forest conservation and sustainable agroforest ry, the Jupar Agroecology Project in Southern Bahia, Brazil. The study evaluates the adoption of agrofo restry practices by families in two communities as well as the patterns of forest conservation or deforestation both on individua l family lots and community-owned property. This research helps to better e xplain the effects of the inte rvention of an ICDP on the adoption of agroforestry practices by individual families, as well as family and community commitment to forest conservation. Agroforestry Adoption Literature on agroforestry adoption eval uates farmers abilities to implement agroforestry systems and other conservati on agricultural practices. Adoption studies sometimes evaluate the effects of a speci fic program or intervention (Bannister &

PAGE 18

7 Nair 2003; Browder & Pedlowsk i 2000; Browder et al. 2005; Neupane et al. 2002). Many studies either assume that all farmer s have been exposed to some specific new practice and correlate adopti on of new practices with so cioeconomic variables, or interview only adopters of a particular practice (Bannister & Nair 2003; Cooms & Burt 1997). A review of agroforestry adopti on papers, published between 1995 and 2001, by Pattanayak et al. (2003) reports that participation in extension programs was considered as an explanatory variable in only 10 of the 32 studies reviewed, but positively influenced adoption in 9 of these 10 cases. Adesina and Chianu (2002) in Nigeria, and Boahene et al. (1999) in Ghana both demonstrat ed that contact with an extension agent had a significant positive e ffect on farmers adoption decisions. In another adoption study carri ed out in Nepal, Neupane et al. (2002) found that membership in an NGO positively influen ced agroforestry adoption by males but negatively influenced adoption by females. A Brazilian example of a project-ba sed agroforestry study analyzes the Rondnia Agroforestry Pilot Project (Bro wder & Pedlowski 2000, Browder et al. 2005). The 2000 study compared successful agro forestry plots established through the project with unsuccessful one s and identified some of the causes of plot failure, including biophysical variable s such as inappropriate pl ot location, and householdlevel variables such as lack of labor or family illness. The 2005 follow-up study compared successful participants with non-participants, and found that nonparticipating neighbors of successful part icipants were also likely to adopt agroforestry.

PAGE 19

8 Most studies on adoption of agroforest ry practices by smallholders in the tropics have focused not on a specific proj ect intervention but on the relationships between other socioeconomic variables a nd a familys likelihood to adopt new practices. Variables that gene rally have a positive influence on a farmers ability to adopt agroforestry practices include age of household head (Bannister & Nair 2003), education (Boahene et al. 1999; Neupane et al. 2002), size of landholding (Adesina & Chianu 2002; Cooms & Burt 1997; Scherr 1995), availability of labor (Adesina & Chianu 2002; Cooms & Burt 1997; Scherr 1995), male gender of farmers (Adesina & Chianu 2002; Cooms & Burt 1997; Scherr 1995), membership in community organizations (Browder & Pedlowski 2000; Neupane et al. 2002), socioeconomic level (Scherr 1995), agriculture as the primary source of income (Simmons et al. 2002), and secure land tenure (Adesina & Chianu 2002; Bannister & Nair 2003; Simmons et al. 2002). Many of these studies take a general su rvey of a large number of households and compare groups of households, often adopters and non-adopters (Bannister & Nair 2003), or project participants with nonparticipants (Browder et al. 2005), or both (Browder & Pedlowski 2000; Neupane et al. 2002). This study offers a more indepth assessment of a smaller number of households. Rather than comparing groups, we developed indices, based on detailed interviews, to measure the extent of participation and adoption by both participa ting and non-participating families. In addition, the effects of several other soci oeconomic variables are considered, drawn from this literature on the adoption of agroforestry practices.

PAGE 20

9 Several authors have iden tified a need for further research on agroforestry adoption in Latin America (Mercer 2004; Pattanayak et al. 2003). Despite the prevalence of agroforestry in Southern Bahi a, few agroforestry adoption studies have been published on this region. Several st udies simply describe the biophysical characteristics of common agroforestry sy stems in the region (Alvim & Nair 1986; Rice & Greenberg 2000). A few studies focus on the social aspects of agroforestry systems and adoption decisions. Alger and Caldas (1994) surveyed Bahian cacao farmers on their land use pract ices and attitudes toward conservation, and found that the poorest farmers on the smallest lots or with the poorest soils were more likely than farmers on better quality lands to con tinue to replace forests with subsistence crops rather than agroforestry, and are more likely to use bananas or fruit trees to provide shade for cacao than to use the traditional cabruca system, which maintains native trees for shade cover. Johns (1999) interviewed cacao producers on mediumsized farms on their attitudes toward the im portance of shade cover, and found that farmers resisted removing shade trees, even when encouraged to do so by a government extension program. Trevizan (1999) interviewed cacao farmers in newly settled and older communities with resp ect to environmenta l risks, including deforestation and destruc tive agricultural practices and concluded that new settlements do not present significantly more environmental risks than older ones in terms of agricultural practic es and deforestation. In general, agroforestry adoption studie s report farmers adoption of one or several specific practices. While the pract ices themselves may be environmentally beneficial in terms of soil conservation, pest control, or reduction of agrochemical use

PAGE 21

10 within the agricultural system, these studi es do not relate the use of sustainable practices within an agricultural system to a broader level of conservation across a farmers property or across a community-w ide landscape. This study takes the idea of agroforestry adoption one step further, by asking whether or not farmers who adopt agroforestry practices are likely to also conserve forests. Integrated Conservation and Development Projects Published reviews of ICDPs worldwide have yielded mixed results, and in many cases, criticism of the ICDP concept as a way to manage protected areas. Many have argued that conservati on programs should not become diluted with social goals like poverty reduction and social justice (B rechin et al. 2002) and should simply focus on nature protection and leave the work of social development to other organizations (Brandon et al. 1998; Kramer et al. 1997). What we know, writes (Brandon et al. 1998), is that alleviati ng poverty will not necessarily lead to improvements in biodiversity conserva tion. Terborgh (1999 ) asserts that a successful ICDP will actually increase pr essure on a protected area, by attracting newcomers to its perimeter. Case studies support many of these clai ms. Kamugisha et al. (1997) published a collection of case histories of various programs surrounding four national parks in Kenya and Uganda and didnt find a singl e conservation and development program that they felt supported local livelihoods successfully enough to slow encroachment into parklands for grazing, water sources, and farmland. In a similar review of 20 ICDPs in Indonesia, Wells et al. (1999) st ated that while monitoring and performance data are incomplete, very few Indonesian ICDPs can realistically claim to have enhanced biodiversity, and the most promisi ng projects are unlikely to be financially

PAGE 22

11 feasible over the long term. The authors suggest a strategic reorientation of international biodiversity conservation f unding. Similar assertions are made by Peters (1998) with referen ce to a project in Madagas car and Blom (1998), citing efforts in the Central African Republic. Other authors are more optimistic. Murn iati et al. (2001) de monstrated that families maintaining highly diversified agroforestry systems in the buffer zone of Kerinci National Park in Indonesia were less dependent on park resources than families with less diversified farms. Al bers and Grinspoon (1997) offer a comparison of two national parks in China, one usi ng a policing and punishing strategy, and the other using an ICDP involvi ng agroforestry systems of rubber, tea, and the resin producing tree Amomum villosum along the parks perimeter. The ICDP controlled park degradation more effectively than th e policing strategy. Br owder (2002) applied the ICDP concept to the Rondonia Agrofore stry Pilot Project in the Brazilian Amazon, and reported that in 50% of comm unities, the projects delivered tangible economic benefits. Preliminary environmen tal data show that regions adopting the agroforestry plots promoted by this ICDP had a lower deforestation rate than neighboring regions from 1995-1998. Both supporters and critics of Inte grated Conservation and Development Projects identify a need for improved evalua tion and monitoring of projects (Brechin et al. 2002; Browder 2002; Johnson et al. 2001 ; Kamugisha et al. 1997; Kremen et al. 1994; Wells et al. 1999). Many projects simply have not been in practice long enough to determine their long term effects. If ICDPs are in fact an ineffective means of managing protected areas, then the next im portant step is to as k why. Is the IDCP

PAGE 23

12 approach a failure, or have we yet to develop adequate programs to pursue conservation and development goals equally well (Brechin et al. 2002)? This research is unique in that it provid es an in-depth evaluation of an ICDP by considering both the effects of the project intervention and of other causal variables drawn from agroforestry adopti on literature. The analysis is carried out at the level of individual families in two communities and in cludes families who participated in the ICDP and families who did not. The Jupar project has been ongoing for more than 10 years in communities throughout Southern Bahia, and offers a suitable example for measuring the long-term outcomes for both conservation and development in a variety of types of communities. Research questions This project provides a comprehensive evaluation of the outcomes of one ICDP, the Jupar Agroecology Project, carried out in the region of the Una Biological Reserve in Southern Bahia, Brazil. Jupa r, a Brazilian NGO, launched an extension program in 1995, in partnership with WWF, to promote diversified agroforestry, organic production, and forest conservation among agricultural communities in Unas buffer zone. The Jupar-WWF project set so me very specific conservation goals for the communities in which it worked. Each community was expected to maintain 30% of its total area in forest cover (20% forest cover is required by Brazilian law), and 40% in agroforestry systems. The remain ing 30% could be used for non-agroforestry crops, livestock, or other uses. Other goals included the appropriate use of agroecological practices, divers ity of agroforestry system s, organic certification, and increased family income (Buschbacher in prep.).

PAGE 24

13 Participatory mapping and interviews with producers in two Jupar communities were carried out in June August 2005 to address the following research questions: Are families that participated in the J upar Agroecology Project meeting project goals for forest conservation and use of agroecologial practices? Are results consistent in different types of communities, including land reform communities and traditional communities? How do family dynamics and size of landholding influence project implementation? Study Area The Atlantic Forest, which once covered mu ch of the eastern coast of Brazil as well as parts of Argentina and Paragua y, is one of the worlds most diverse ecosystems, and also one of the most endangered. Due to intensive human occupation, only about 7% of the forest re mains intact, according to a recent mapping project (Hirota 2003). The region is home to 108 million people, or about 60% of Brazils population (Hirota 2003). The Atlantic Forest Biome is on the Global 200 list of globally outstanding ecoregions, and is considered a Biodiversity Hot Spot. The region supports over 1600 species of terre strial vertebrates and 20,000 species of vascular plants, and including more than 6000 endemic plant species and more than 500 endemic animal species (Mittermeier et al. 1999). Within southern Bahia, researchers have documented extremely hi gh tree diversity (Thomas et al. 1998), and 50% of the known endemic bird species of the Atlantic Forest (Aguiar et al. 2003). The cacao growing region of southern Bahia contains some of the largest remaining patches of Atlantic Forest, including the 11,000 hectare Una Biological Reserve. Currently about 6,500 km2 of Theobroma cacao a medium-sized understory tree, are planted in this region (Aguiar et al 2003). Many maintain some

PAGE 25

14 of the original forest canopy or are interspersed with patche s of natural forest (Alger 1998; Alves 1990; Buschbacher in prep.). This regions cacao agroforests have generated considerable interest within th e conservation community for their potential to maintain forest-like landscapes and serv e as biological corridors between blocks of otherwise fragmented forest (A lger 1998; Alves 1990; Green berg et al. 2000; Pardini 2004). Researchers in many countries have demonstrated that while agroforestry systems are no substitute for intact forest, some wildlife species are able to use cacaobased systems to some extent as a corrido r between areas of more suitable habitat, with more diverse systems providing more suitable habitat than less diverse systems (Alves 1990; Greenberg et al 2000; Laurance 2004; Reitsma et al. 2001). Pardini (2004) carried out such a study on small ma mmals on fragmented areas of the Una Biological Reserve. Historically, cacao in Bahia was produced on large plantations with hired labor. Many of these plantation s were planted under the cabruca system, in which some of the forests original overstory trees were left for shade and the understory was cleared for cacao planting (Alves 1990). The cab ruca system required smaller labor investments than clear-cut systems, and so was amenable to largely absentee estate owners (Ruf & Schroth 2004). On some estates, cacao is planted as a row crop, alone or with a single overstory species, of ten rubber or fast growing non-native trees that provide shade. The arri val of witches broom disease ( Crinipellis perniciosa ), a fungal disease, in 1989 (Alger & Caldas 1994), combined with a decline in cacao prices at around the same time, led to the abandonment of many plan tations or to their conversion to pastures for cattle, and to th e felling of remaining large trees (Alger

PAGE 26

15 1998; Ruf & Schroth 2004; Trevizan 1998). Today much of the cacao produced in Bahia is produced by small and medium-sized landholders, because of the labor intensity required to control th e disease (Rice & Greenberg 2000). The cacao crisis in Southern Bahia helped facilitate the agrarian land reform movement in this area. High unemploym ent rates resulted in an increase in unemployed workers becoming involved in th e land reform movements, including the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST) and others (Trevizan 1998). With little prospect of future earnings in cacao, owners of the once-lucrative cacao plantations were willing to sell thei r land to the Brazilian government for redistribution among landless settlers (Buschbacher in prep.). Depending on the biophysical conditions of the site, many producers in Southern Bahia maintain di versified agroforestry systems rather than cabruca systems. These may include cacao, rubber, cloves, black pepper, guaran, oranges and other fruit trees, and various palm sp ecies. Jupar has worked with both diversified producers and cacao producers, a nd with both agrarian reform settlements and traditional communities. Jupar Project History Jupar is a Brazilian community devel opment organization with origins in the Catholic Church and the labor movement which has been providing assistance to both agrarian reform communities and traditional agricultural communities in Southern Bahia since the 1980s. In 1994, J upar entered into a partnership with WWF. WWF was interested in the conser vation of forest fragments in the buffer zone of the Una Biological Reserve, and in particular the preservation of habitat for the golden headed lion tamarin ( Leontopithecus chrysomelas ), an endemic primate

PAGE 27

16 species. The Una Reserve was created specifica lly to protect this species, but studies have determined that the reserve is no t large enough to gua rantee the long-term survival of the golden headed li on tamarin (Deitz et al. 1994). The Jupar-WWF project exemplif ies the dual purpose of ICDPs, encompassing the main goals of both partne r organizations; to develop a model for family agriculture that would both promot e forest conservation among landowners in Southern Bahia, and improve the socioec onomic conditions of families living in the area (Buschbacher in prep.). Beginning in 1995, Jupar formed severa l extension teams who began working in 36 communities in the area, providing training in community leadership and organization, and agroecological practices, such as the use of contour erosion barriers, green manures and cover crops, organic fe rtilizers and composting, integrated pest management, and diversification of agrofore stry systems. Target practices are described in greater detail in Table 21. Agroforestry is the most common agricultural system for smallholders in Bahi a, as most of the re gions traditional cash crops are tree crops, including cacao, rubber, cl oves, palm fiber and fruit. Therefore, the training was oriented more toward impr ovement of current agroforestry systems and the use of organic methods rather than actual agroforestry adoption. As a result of this training, 338 families in 14 commun ities received organic certification in 2002, including 9 settlements in which 100% of families received organic certification (Buschbacher in prep.).

PAGE 28

17 Table 2-1. Description of target agroecological practices. 1. Use of Organic Fertilizers. Four types of organic fert ilizers were promoted by Jupara: Commercial Organic Fertilizer Jupar produces this fertiliz er and sells it to farmers. Homemade Liquid Organic Fer tilizer A type of compost tea, using manure and other organic ingredients, that Jupar extensionists taught farmers to make for themselves. Compost Composting of organic materials such as cacao shells and food scraps. Produces a small amount of fertilizer, usually used for cacao seedlings. Green Manures Nitrogen fixing plants th at are planted either between crops or during a fallow period and allowed to decay on site. Can be used to improve soil quality or control erosion; farmers also re port using green manures to control ants. Species commonly used were canavalia (Canavalia enisformis) and pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) 2. Use of crop rotation. Rotation of the location of crops from year to year. An annual crop should be followed by a crop fr om a different family. In agroforestry systems, annual crops are gradually replaced by perennial and tree crops. 3. Multicropping. More than one species is planted in each field. Tree crops might be planted with annual crops or several tree crops planted together. 4. Mulching. Use of mulches such as leaves or cacao shells, usually around the base of trees, to ad d nutrients and control erosion. 5. Contour erosion barriers. Planting along the countour, with the creation of some kind of barrier to control erosion and gradually form terraces perpendicular to the slope. The barrier is us ually created by piling up the or ganic residue (weeds and fallow vegetation hand cleared in prep aration for planting) in contour rows. Typically, annual crops are planted in the cleared area between the rows of residue, and tree crops are planted in the rows. This way of treating the organic residue is an alternative to burni ng; it is labor-intensive but promotes long-term soil productivity. 6. Elimination of Agrochemicals. Agrochemicals commonly used in Bahia include chemical fertilizers and pesticides to eliminate leafcutter ants. Jupar hoped to replace these with organic products. 7. Elimination of Fire. Farmers in Bahia commonly burn to clear forest or clear fallowed fields for planting. Jupar hoped to replace burning with intensive, permanent agroforestry systems and the use of contour barriers. The second stage of the Jupar-WWF pr ogram focused on commercialization of organic cacao. In July of 1998, a local cooperative called COOPASB ( a Cooperativa dos Pequenos Produtores e Produtoras Agroecologistas do Sul da Bahia ) was formed to assist with the commercialization of agricu ltural products. The first large sale of

PAGE 29

18 certified organic cacao for export was made in July of 2003 (Buschbacher in prep.). In 2005, Coopasb purchased 207 tons of organic cacao produced by local smallholders. Most of it was sold to Cargil l, an international co rporation that exports cacao from the region. Prior to this study, a comprehensive eval uation of the extent to which Jupar communities are implementing organic agricultural practices and meeting the goals for land use and forest conservati on had not yet been performed. Jupar has worked in varying degrees of intensity in 36 communities, with extension efforts concentrated more intensely in those communities closer to the Una Reserve. These 36 communities represent a wide range of economic, social, and biophysical characteristics. Families w ithin communities also differ in size, socioeconomic status, farming history, size and type of landholding, levels of participation in extension activities, and attitudes toward conservation. Given this range of variables, we expected to fi nd varying level of success among families in meeting the conservation goals set forth by Jupar. Selection of Study Sites Two communities were selected for this evaluation, Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa (Figure 2-1). Jupar has worked in several types of communities including land reform settlements and traditional commun ities. Fortaleza is a 30-year-old land reform settlement, and Lagoa Santa is a traditional community that has existed for many generations. They were selected for this study because Jupar extension support has been consistent enough to provide a reasonable test of their intervention. Fortaleza, in particular, received a high leve l of extension support due to its location close to the community reserve, and Lagoa Santa was consistently involved in Jupar

PAGE 30

19 activities partly due to the e fforts of one particularly dedi cated community leader. In addition, the production systems in these communities are both based on mixed agroforestry systems and are similar enough to allow a comparison between the communities. These communities have strong community leaders, which facilitated both continued participation in the Jupar projec t and the logistics of this research. The political climate in the region made it unf easible for this re searcher to conduct interviews in a community in wh ich Jupar has not worked. Figure 2-1. Location of study sites. Fort aleza and Lagoa Santa are shown in red.

PAGE 31

20 Methods Description of Study Sites Fortaleza Fortaleza is a land reform settlement in th e municipality of Una, BA. Fifty families are settled on 1102 hectares, with an average lot size of 16 hectares (INCRA 2005). Approximately 250 hectares are in community areas, including a small forest reserve and a community cacao plantation. Families began settling the area in the mid 1970s. At that time, the area was complete ly forested. Most of the settlers in Fortaleza grew up on their parents farms, usua lly also in Southern Bahia, or worked on nearby rubber plantations befo re settling there. INCRA ( Instituto Nacional de Colonizao e Reforma Agraria the government agency responsible for land reform) officially divided the land and gave titles to these landholders in 1997. At this time, some families were moved from their original plot of land to a different plot, in some cases, a new, completely forested plot, and other families had a portion of their original land officially titled to a neighbor In most cases, the male head of household received a title to his indivi dual parcel of land. There are also a few female heads of household. In general, each farmer and his family work their own piece of land. Some farmers have organized a mutiro or a workgroup for labor exchange in which they take turns working together in each members field. Other than the mutiro landholdings are individually managed. Farmers in Fortaleza produce mainly r ubber and cacao as cash crops, as well as some manioc, corn, fruit and vegetable crops for consumption. Few families own livestock beyond one mule, for hauling cacao, and a few chickens. On average, 47% of family income comes from agricultura l production and 53% comes from off-farm

PAGE 32

21 sources, usually employment in the nearby town of Una, or retirement pensions. Most of the agricultural income comes from rubber. Nine families have received organic certification thro ugh the Jupar program. Although this area has been settled for mo re than 30 years, it still lacks many basic services. Only a small part of the community has electricit y, and bus service is sporadic at best. Water is obtained from springs along a small stream, sometimes at a considerable distance from the familys home, and basic sanitation is completely lacking. Many of the original farmers in Fortal eza are getting older and have children who are married and beginning their own familie s. In some cases, the land has been unofficially divided among several sons. In one case, 23 people are surviving on the production of one 17 hectare parcel. In ot her cases, the children of these farmers work in Una or on nearby plantations. Recently Jupar has helped to organize a new group of landless rural workers, composed pr imarily of the sons and daughters of the farmers in Fortaleza. The group is petiti oning INCRA to grant them title to a new settlement on a nearby piece of land. Th e group chose not to occupy the land and remain in Fortaleza with their parents, awaiting a decision from INCRA. Lagoa Santa Lagoa Santa is a traditional agricultural community located in the municipality of Ituber. Lagoa Santa is a quilombo community, or a community that was originally founded by a group of escaped slaves. Families of the residents have farmed this land for several generations; as a result the landho ldings have been divided several times among farmers descendant s, and landholdings tend to be small. Landholding size ranged from 2 to 25 hectares with an average size of 9 hectares.

PAGE 33

22 Many of the larger landholdings are shared by extended families. Little native forest remains in this area. INCRA does not keep maps and records of older quilombo communities as it does for more recent settlements, so it is uncertain how many families live in Lagoa Santa and how much area the community encompasses. About 30 families are members of the community organization, but many other residents do not participate. Lagoa Santa is one of several quilombos in a cluster of small communities. Some members of these nearby communities particip ated in the Jupar project and several participants from the neighboring quilombo Campo da Amancio were also interviewed for this study to increase the sample size. Farmers in Lagoa Santa maintain diverse agroforestry systems similar to those in Fortaleza, producing mainly rubber, cloves, piassava palm fiber for roofing material, and small amounts of cacao, black pepper, and manioc flour. On average, 67% of family income comes from agricu lture and the remaining 33% comes from off-farm sources, including employment in Ituber and on nearby plantations. Only one family maintains organic certifi cation through the Jupar project. Like Fortaleza, Lagoa Santa lacks elect ricity, potable wate r, basic sanitation, and regular public tran sportation services. Field Methods A total of 50 household interviews were conducted in June, July and August of 2005. Jupar staff presented me to each comm unity at the start of my fieldwork, and I stayed in each community alone to conduct the interviews. I visited each community twice, first spending two weeks in each community, returning to Ilhus to

PAGE 34

23 conduct preliminary data analys is, and then returning to each community for a second visit of about 10 days. In Fortaleza, the fifty existing households were classified as participants, former participants, or non-participan ts. Current members of the COOPASB cooperative were considered participants, past members were considered former participants, and non-members were consid ered non-participants. All of the participants and former pa rticipants were interviewed, and of the remaining nonparticipants, a random sample of 10 was sele cted, for a total of 30 interviews. In Lagoa Santa, no map or list of presen t households existed, so households were sampled opportunistically for a total of 20 interviews, 10 with participants and 10 with non-participants. Interview content includ ed questions concerning family demographics, agricultural practices, and land cover distribution, as listed in Table 2-2. To assist participants in describing their propertys land cover dist ribution and the size and age of agroforestry systems, a participator y mapping activity was carried out in which participants were asked to draw a map of their landholding. Annual family income was calculated by asking the re spondent to list the products th at he or she sells, their approximate market price, and quant ity harvested per month or year. For each household interviewed, the researcher also toured the property with the landowner to verify information obtaine d in the interview, and to collect GPS points and a brief description of each of the land cover type s present on the property.

PAGE 35

24 Table 2-2. Interview content Explanatory Variables Response Variables Participation in: Community a nd regional trainings Jupar extension visits Demonstration plots and workgroups Womens development activities Health and environmental education activities Community organizations Leadership positions in community organizations Family Characteristics: Family size Workers on and off farm Number of years farming this site Years of primary education Size of landholding Agricultural practices, including use of: Organic fertilizers Composting Green manures Contour erosion barriers Crop rotation Multicropping Mulching Chemical fertilizers Burning Land cover types present: Forest, agroforestry, capoeira (fallow areas and forest regrowth), annual crops, pasture Income Diversity of products On and off farm income Data Analysis Participation To measure a familys level of participa tion in the Jupara program, participants were asked whether or not they had partic ipated in a number of Jupara sponsored activities, and whether they had participated once, several times, or many times. Participants were also asked whether or not they were a present or past member of COOPASB or any other organization, and whether they had ever held a leadership position in any of these organizations. Families involvement in the Jupar program varied considerably. In order to consider participation as a continuous vari able, rather than co mparing groups of participants and non-participants, each ac tivity was given a numeric score. Most activities were scored 1 for pa rticipating once, 2 for partic ipating several times, and 3

PAGE 36

25 for participating many times. Activities which were more difficult for farmers to participate in, such as trav eling to attend a regional tr aining event, or indicated a higher level of participati on, such as joining the COOP ASB cooperative, were more heavily weighted, as indicated in Table 2-3. The sum of these was calculated to give an overall participat ion score for each family. The distribution of participation scores in Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa are shown in Figure 2-2. Because the development of the particip ation score was somewhat subjective, the validity of the score was verified by producing 10 variations of the score and comparing them statistically to one another. Five scores were created based on the authors judgment of five possible ways of choosing particip ation criteria and weighting them, and five more were produced by randomly eliminating some components and weighting the components randomly. A correlation matrix was generated to compare the scores to each other, and showed that the scores were correlated, with p<0.001 in all cases. A s econd correlation matrix compared the rank of each family using the 10 participation sc ores; rankings were also highly correlated in all cases, p<0.001. Because the families rankings changed little with each variation of the participati on score, we can say that no matter which version of the score is used, families with high participation will consistently have a high participation score, and families with lo wer participation will score lower.

PAGE 37

26 Table 2-3. Jupar sponsored activities and corresponding participation scores. Regional Training in: Agroecology 0 = never, 3 = once, 4 = several times, 5 = many times Womens Issues 0 = never, 3 = once, 4 = several times, 5 = many times Other (health, cooperatives) 0 = never, 3 = once, 4 = several times, 5 = many times Community Training in: Agroecology 0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = several times, 3 = many times Womens Issues 0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = several times, 3 = many times Other (health, cooperatives, 0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = several times, 3 = many times theater, or environmental education) Received a visit from: An agronomist (male) 0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = several times, 3 = many times An environmental educator (female) 0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = several times, 3 = many times Visited another Jupara Community 0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = several times, 3 = many times Participated in a Demonstrative Plot 0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = several times, 3 = many times or community plot. Participated in a Mutirao 0 = never, 1 = occasionally, 2 = participated (Community work group) in the past, 3 = participating regularly now. Member of Coopasb 0 = no, 3 = past member, 5 = current member Member of another organization 0 = no, 1 = yes Woman is also a member. 0 = no, 1 = yes Has held a leadership position 0 = no in one of these organizations 3 = president 1 = all other leadership positions

PAGE 38

27 Figure 2-2. Range of partic ipation s cores in Fortal eza and Lagoa Santa. Community 1 = Fortaleza, 2 = Lagoa Santa3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0Participation Score50 40 30 20 10 0 MembershipCoopasb Member Past Coopasb Member Non-Member Use of Agroecological Practices Families were asked whether or not they were currently using a variety of traditional and innovative agroecological prac tices on their properties. Because the use of some practices tended to be highly co rrelated with the use of other practices, these data were reduced using a Principa l Components Analysis (PCA). The first component of the PCA produced a continuum of practices, rangi ng from ecologically destructive practices on one e nd, such as burning and the us e of chemical fertilizers, to more innovative and ecologically desirabl e practices on the othe r end, such as the use of organic fertilizers, as illustrated in Figure 2-3. Practices which were more commonly practiced and possibl y easier to implement, such as crop rotation and mulching, fell somewhere in the middle. This scale is labeled the Ecological Desirability of Practices. The PCA produced a score somewhere along this

PAGE 39

28 continuum for each family. This scale of th e Ecological Desirability of Practices was used in the subsequent analysis to re present the extent to which families had implemented agroecological practices. Figure 2-3. Component plot for principal components analysis. Component one orders practices from ecologically de structive to ecologically beneficial. Component 1 Ecological Desirability of Practices1. 0 .5 0.0 -.5 -1.0Component 21.0 .5 0.0 -.5 -1.0 toxics burning contour rotation multi_cr mulch hm_fert green_m org_fert compost Multiple Regressions For each community, six stepwise multiple regression models were used to compare the effects of partic ipation, using the index prev iously described, and nine other family attributes, on six outcome va riables that represent Jupars goals for conservation and adoption of agroecological practices. Family attributes included family size, ratio of farm and off farm work ers to total family members, ratio of farm workers to total family members, age and education level of household head, size of landholding, years the farmer has farmed th is plot, income, and percent of total Legend: Toxics Uses agrochemicals including fertilizers. Burning Uses fire to clear fields Rotation Uses crop rotation Contour Uses contour erosion barriers Green_m Plants green manures Mulch Uses mulch around plants or trees. Compost Composts organic materials for fertilizer. Multi_cr Uses multicropping. Hm_fert Makes and uses homemade liquid organic fertilizer Org_fert Purchases and uses commercial organic fertilizer

PAGE 40

29 income derived from farming. Outcome variables included the use of agroecological practices (Ecological Desirability of Practices score and number of practices implemented), percent of landholding in forest cover, percent of landholding in agroforestry, number of products pr oduced for sale, and farm income. Several other family attribute variables were considered but were found to be correlated with one or more of these variables and were eliminated. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to confir m that data were normally distributed. Results Comparison of communities Descriptive data collected in the tw o communities reveals some similarities and differences between Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa (Table 2-4). Families in Lagoa Santa are slightly larger, have more farm workers, and earn a larger percentage of their income from farming than families in Fortaleza. Level of basic education in Fortaleza is slightly higher, though in Fortal eza, non-participants are generally more educated than participants, while in Lagoa Santa, participants have more years of education. The most apparent difference between Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa is in the distribution of land uses. Pa rticipants in Lagoa Santa tend to have more land than non-participants, while in Fo rtaleza all landholdings are vi rtually the same size. Landholders in Lagoa Santa dedicate a larg er percentage of their landholdings to agroforestry systems and have considerab ly less forested and fallowed areas than farmers in Fortaleza. Landholdings in Fortal eza are much larger than those in Lagoa Santa. In both communities, land use distri bution between groups of participants and non-participants are similar.

PAGE 41

30 30Table 2-4. Descriptive statistics by groups for two communities. P=Participants, FP = Former Participan ts, NP = Non-Participa nts. Fortaleza Lagoa Santa P FP NP All Std.dev P NP All Std.dev. Family Size Total Family Members 5.75 7.11 5.44 6.07 4.19 6.25 8.28 7.35 5.56 On-farm Workers 1.71 2.17 2.03 1.85 1.30 2.94 2.46 2.65 1.43 Off-farm Workers 4.04 4.94 3.42 1.23 1.00 0.28 1.25 0.86 0.83 Children living outside community 2.45 5.63 3.29 3.65 3.19 2.25 4.20 3.00 3.28 Average Age of all family members 25.55 29.54 26.80 27.28 21.9 22.05 26.68 29.31 10.68 Head of Household Age 55.00 55.11 51.67 52.17 13.3 47.13 59.83 52.60 11.15 Years of education Head of Household 1.58 1.22 2.78 1.83 1.91 2.88 1.00 1.75 2.75 Ages 18-30 7.70 5.92 7.46 7.00 3.37 4.39 6.71 5.04 3.22 Ages 31-50 6.75 3.75 2.36 4.07 3.11 3.17 2.20 2.73 3.12 Ages 51+ 1.44 0.63 1.31 1.05 1.25 0.07 1.67 0.33 0.97 Years farming on current property 16.92 25.00 19.44 20.10 9.09 26.88 30.42 29.00 19.03 Family Landholding Total Area 16.42 16.06 15.24 15.96 1.30 11.81 7.85 9.43 7.40 Hectares Agroforestry 7.75 8.00 7.72 7.82 3.27 8.63 5.46 6.73 5.40 % Agroforestry 36 .4% 33.1% 37.7% 39.1 % 15.6% 75.8% 73.8% 74.6% 20.3% Age of Oldest Agroforestry System 14.17 17.56 23.13 17.68 8.80 19.00 23.00 21.22 10.26 Age of Newest Agroforestry System 6.46 6.56 6.33 6.45 5.07 6.44 5.44 5.91 4.14 Hectares Natural Forest 3.58 2.56 3.00 3.10 3.45 1.63 0.77 1.11 2.67 % Natural Forest 36.4% 33.1% 37.9% 36.0% 17.9% 8.9% 7.4% 8.0% 15.2% Years since most recent deforestation 9.75 12 .00 12.83 11.40 7.20 8. 20 16.75 12.00 9.74 Hectares Fallow and/or Forest Regrowth 1.79 2.22 3.39 2.40 2.17 0.91 0.58 0.71 1.06 % Fallow/Forest Regrowth 18.4% 10.8% 8.3% 12.3% 11.5 7.8% 8.8% 8.4% 10.4% Hectares Annual Crops 1.71 1.42 1.25 1.48 1.38 0.91 0..81 0.85 0.97 % Annual Crops 6.4% 7.0% 8.3% 7.3% 6.5% 7.5% 13.6% 11.1% 14.4%

PAGE 42

31 31Table 2-4. Continued Fortaleza Lagoa Santa P FP NP All Std.dev P NP All Std.dev. Hectares Pasture 0.88 0.75 1.66 1.08 1.13 0.63 0.75 0.70 1.03 % Pasture 8.6% 3.9% 4.1% 5.4% 5.8% 3.2% 2.9% 3.0% 3.8% Total Income in Brazilian Reis 6202 10659 10317 8700 4617 7721 10055 8581 4341 Farm Income 3153 4470 3912 3775 2290 3347 8861 5375 3716 Other Income 3127 6188 6405 4925 3689 4383 1193 3206 3717 % income from farming 50.9% 46.6% 36.8% 45.2% 26.3% 49.2% 92.7% 66.6% 30.8%

PAGE 43

32 Regression Analysis of participatio n and family attributes on program implementation Fortaleza Participation positively influenced the im plementation of sustainable agricultural practices, as indicated by both the ecological desirability of practices score and the total number of practices implemented, as well as farm income, but did not influence land cover. Stepwise multiple regression an alyses indicated a variety of significant relationships between the outcome variable s and other socioeconomic factors, as illustrated in Table 2-5. Table 2-5. Multiple regression models for Fortaleza. Outcome Variable Significant Predictors B t Sig. (p) R2__ Ecological Participation 0.491 3.426 0.002 0.511 Desirability of Ratio of Farm wo rkers/total family 0.353 2.558 0.017 Practices Score Education 0.321 2.237 0.034 # Organic practices Participation 0.532 3.328 0.002 0.283 # Ag. Products Education 0.494 3.113 0.004 0.321 Size of lot 0.298 1.880 0.071 % Agroforestry Education 0.421 2.588 0.015 0.288 Years on Lot 0.349 2.149 0.041 % Natural Forest Years on Lot -0.466 -2.789 0.009 0.271 Farm income % income from Agriculture 0.685 6.108 0.000 0.768 Family size 0.397 3.660 0.001 Participation 0.377 3.275 0.003 Years on Lot 0.263 2.226 0.036 Size of Lot 0.211 1.769 0.090 Predictors eliminated from all mode ls: Ratio of total workers (on and off-farm) to total family members Age of Head of Household Lagoa Santa Participation positively influenced the number of organic practices implemented, the diversity of agricultural products produced for sale, a nd farm income, but did not influence land cover. Other predictors we re significant as indicated in Table 2-6.

PAGE 44

33 Table 2-6. Multiple regression models for Lagoa Santa. Dependant Variable Predictor B t Sig. (p) R2__ Ecological Education 0.508 2.505 0.022 0.259 Desirability of Practices Score # Organic practices Ratio Farm workers/total family -0.510 -2.780 0.013 0.440 Participation 0.505 2.751 0.014 # Ag. Products Participation 0.793 5.531 0.000 0.630 % Agroforestry Family Size 0.455 2.168 0.044 0.207 % Natural Forest None significant Farm income Participation 0.480 2.530 0.022 0.393 Age of household head 0.362 1.910 0.073 Predictors eliminated from all models: Ratio of workers to total family members Years on lot % of income from agriculture Size of lot Use of Agricultural Practices Multiple regression analyses examined overall implementation of agroecological practices, but did not assess which practices were implemented by farmers and which were not. Looking at each specific practice, we find that some prac tices were adopted by Jupar participants more often than non-part icipants, others were in use by virtually everyone, and others werent adopted at all. These data help determine which practices are most acceptable, and which are most difficult to implement. Fortaleza Figure 2-4 shows the percentage of part icipants, former participants, and non participants in Fortaleza who adopted each of the practices. Some practices were seldom adopted by any group, including the use of green manures, homema de liquid organic fertilizer, and composting. Others, contour er osion barriers, use of commercial organic fertilizer, which is sold by Jupar, and ab andonment of agrochemicals, were adopted by participants more often than non-participants. Participants eliminated the use of burning only slightly more often than non-participants. The remain ing practices, crop rotation,

PAGE 45

34 mulching, and multicropping, were in use by part icipants and non-participants alike and may be considered traditiona l practices in Fortaleza. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Green ManuresHomemade Organic Fertilizer CompostingContour Erosion Barriers Commercial Organic Fertilizer No BurningNo Agrochemicals Crop RotationMulching Multi-croppingPercent of landowners adopting practice Non-Participants Former Participants Current Participants Figure 2-4. Adoption of agroecol ogical practices in Fortaleza. Lagoa Santa Results were similar in Lagoa Santa, as shown in Figure 2-5. Green manures and homemade liquid organic fertilizer were th e least adopted practices for all groups. Composting was adopted more often by non-pa rticipants. Contour erosion barriers, commercial organic fertilizer, and the elimin ation of agrochemicals were adopted more often by participants than non-participants. Around 40% of farmers in both groups had eliminated the use of fire, and crop rota tion, mulching, and multicropping were used by almost all farmers in both groups.

PAGE 46

35 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Green Manures Homemade Organic Fertilizer CompostingContour Erosion Barriers Commercial Organic Fertilizer No BurningNo Agrochemicals Crop RotationMulching Multi-croppingPercent of landowners adopting practice Non Participants Participants Figure 2-5. Adoption of agroecologi cal practices in Lagoa Santa Land Cover Average reported land use distributions in Fortaleza (Figure 2-6) and Lagoa Santa (Figure 2-7) appear to be si milar among groups of particip ants and non-par ticipants, but different between the two communities. Lagoa Santa has much less forest cover and much more agroforestry. Graphs for Fort aleza are adjusted to include the community forest reserve. Figure 2-6. Land cover distribution in Fortaleza, as reported by farmers. Non-Participants39% 9% 4% 9% 39% Current Participants36% 6% 8% 17% 33% Former Participants7% 4% 11% 35% 43% Agroforestry Annual Crops Pasture Capoeira Forest

PAGE 47

36 Figure 2-7. Land Cover Dist ribution in Lagoa Santa, as reported by farmers. These figures report the average of the repor ted land use distributions. This can be deceiving, especially in Fortal eza. On, average, the land use goal of 30% forest appears to be met. However, these averages reflect the fact that some farmers on newer lots have more than 30% of their area still forested, whil e others have no forest at all. Figure 2-8 shows the percentage of landowners meeting land use goals in each community. In all groups, 55% or less of the farmers interviewed meet the goal for forest cover. The goal for each property is 12.5% in Fortaleza after the community reserve is accounted for, and 30% in Lagoa Santa. Participants76% 8% 3% 8% 9% Non Participants74% 14% 3% 9% 7% Agroforestry Annual Crops Pasture Capoeira Forest

PAGE 48

37 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Nonparticipants F Former Participants F Participants FNonparticipants LS Participants LSPercent of landowners meeting land use goals Agroforestry Forest Figure 2-8. Percentage of landowners meeti ng land use goals in Fortaleza (F) and Lagoa Santa (LS) for Agroforestry and Forest. Discussion Agroecological Practices The Jupar Project was successful in teach ing agroecological practices such as the use of organic fertilizers, composting, and contour erosion barriers, and reducing or eliminating the use of agrochemicals and fire Multiple regression analyses indicate that participation in Jupar had a highly signifi cant effect on the implementation of organic practices on a scale defined by the Ecological Desi rability of Practices Score in Fortaleza, diversity of agricultu ral products in Lagoa Santa, a nd number of organic practices implemented in both of these communities. In addition to participation in the Jupar pr ogram, availability of farm workers, as measured by ratio of farm workers to total fa mily members, and educational level of the household head, also positively influenced the use of agroecological practices. In Fortaleza, education significantly influenced th e diversity of agricultural products for sale

PAGE 49

38 and the area of agroforestry systems establis hed. The fact that education was often a significant influence on more than one of thes e outcome variables might indicate that in addition to extension services, rural commun ities benefit from access to basic education. In both communities, some practices were implemented more often than others. Practices tended to fall into one of three categories: practices implemented by almost everyone, practices implemented by almost no one, and practices implemented more often by participants than by non-participants. Almost all of the farmers interviewed were using crop rotation, multicropping, and mulching. These three practices might be considered traditional practices in these communities, since they are used even by those who had no contact with the Jupar program. Participating farmers may also have been influenced by their non-participating neighbor s to adopt some practices, especially in Fortaleza, where the program was very visible, even to non-participants. Green manures, homemade liquid organic fertilizer, and compost were among the least utilized practices. Green manures were used by less than 20% of both participants and non-participants in all three communities. This practice may not have been as vigorously promoted as some of the others, as many farmers had never even heard of the practice, and seeds were not readily availa ble. The few farmers who did report using green manures reported using them as a pest control method agains t leaf-cutter ants, rather than as a source of fertilizer. Compost was used by less than 40% of fa rmers, and homemade liquid fertilizer was used by only around 20% of farmers. Many farmers explained that these two techniques required the availability of manur e, and most of them do not have livestock, so manure is not easily accessible. Some farm ers compost kitchen scraps and agricultural

PAGE 50

39 wastes such as the outer shells of c acao pods, but generally there is not enough compostable organic material available to produce enough compost or compost tea to depend on it as a main source of organic fertilizer. In Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa, the elimination of agrochemicals, the use of commercial organic fertilizer, and the use of contour erosion barrier s are practiced much more often by participants than not particip ants. In this case, Jupar produces the commercial organic fertilizer and sells it to farmers. While it appears to provide a satisfactory replacement for chemical fertiliz ers for farmers who choose it, it is slightly more expensive than chemical fertilizer, require s a larger quantity per hectare, and thus is more difficult to transport. Many farmer s stated this expense and difficulty of transportation as primary reasons for not us ing the commercial organic fertilizer. Contour erosion barriers are labor intensiv e and require some technical expertise to create. Increased use by pa rticipants might indicate th at Jupar was successful in providing this technical expertise and motivating farmers to invest in a labor intensive but ecologically beneficial process. Contour erosion barriers should reduce the use of fire, as a permanent vegetative barrier is planted on top of the erosion barrier, so the us e of fire would destroy the established barrier. Disappointi ngly, 60% of farmers in Lagoa Santa still burn their fields before planting, and project participants are as likely to burn as non-participants. In Fortaleza, 50% of participants, 67% of former participants, and 33% of non-participants, burn. Many of the same farmers implementi ng contour erosion barriers on one part of their property may be using fire somewhere else. However, burning was measured as a yes or no variable, and these data do not de scribe the type of bur ning practiced. Most

PAGE 51

40 respondents reported using fire only to clear recently fallowed areas for planting, and not as a means of clearing forest. These data also indicate that eliminating th e use of fire as a management tool may be the most difficult of Jupars target practices to implement. Income Families participating in the project tended to have higher levels of farm income than those not participating, and in Lagoa Sant a, participating families produced a greater diversity of products for sale. While its po ssible that participa tion in the extension program enabled families to create more productive farms, its also possible that those with already productive farms, or those mo st dependent on farm income, were more likely to participate in the program. Family size, lot size, number of years fa rming the lot, and age of household head were also all positively correlated with farm income in one or more communities, according to the linear regression models. In both Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa, total income was higher for non-participants than for participants, but farm income was higher for participants than non-participants. T hus, participants tended to derive a higher percentage of their total income from agri culture, especially in Lagoa Santa, where participants earned 92.7% of their income from agriculture, while non -participants earned only 49.2% of their income from agriculture. This may indicate that those who depend highly on agriculture for their liv elihoods have a great er incentive to i nvest in a program such as Jupar, while those earning a portion of their income from an off-farm source may be too busy to participate, or, since gene rally they are already earning an equal or higher income through wage labor than they would earn farming, they may not feel that such an investment is necessary.

PAGE 52

41 Land Cover Participating families did not conserve more forest or implement more agroforestry systems than non-participating families. In Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa, extensive conversion of forest to agroforestry had al ready occurred before the program began, and the ten-year period of the program may not be a sufficient length of time for changes in land cover patterns, such as the regrowth of secondary forests, to develop in response to changes in practice initiated by the Jupar program. Farmers in Fortaleza are meeting Jupars goals of maintaining a minimum of 40% of the area in agroforestry and 30% of natura l forest more often than farmers in Lagoa Santa. In Fortaleza, 20% of the communitys to tal area is conserved as a forest reserve. To maintain a total of 30% forested, individual farmers would have to conserve an additional 12.5% of the individual landholding in natural forest. On average, 19% of each individual landholding is forested, with 43% of farmers maintaining at least 12.5% forested. The multiple regression model demonstrated that the factor most affecting forest cover is the number of years the family has been farming the lot (p=0.009). Forest cover decreases with time, and families with large amounts of forest cover are those who were moved to new, forested lots when IN CRA officially delineated the properties in 1997, as shown in Chapter 4. Most farmers re ported settling on a comp letely forested lot at some point in the past, and converting it to ag riculture over a period of several years. In Lagoa Santa, the area has been used for farming for many generations. After several generations of dividi ng the land among family members, some lots are very small and most are completely invested in intens ive agriculture and agroforestry; on average, 75% of lots are in agroforestry systems. Due to this long history of agricultural use, its not surprising that Lagoa Santa has less fore st cover remaining, on average 8% of each

PAGE 53

42 lot, though many farmers have no forest at all. There is no community forest reserve in Lagoa Santa, and only 2 farmers meet the goa l of conserving 30% of the land in natural forest. Some farmers stated that they are maintaining an area of forest regrowth as their reserve, and on average 8.4% of lots were in forest re growth. Farmers reported an average of 12 years since the most recent defore station on the site, so it is likely that most of the deforestation in this area occurred befo re the Jupar program began working in the region. Additional analysis of a time series of sate llite images is provided in Chapter 4 to more fully understand the changes in land c over patterns before and after the Jupar program. Success of the Jupar Agroecology Project Based on these results, was Jupar an effective integrated conservation and development project? Are families meeting the project goals? Results of this program evaluation are in agreement with several other published ICDP evaluations (Browder 2002; Perz 2004): development goals seem to be met more frequently than conservation ones. In both communities, participation in the Jupar program influenced the implementation of more sustainable production practices and enabled farmers to meet the requirement s for organic certif ication, though the certification itself wasnt actually maintained in all cases. Participating farmers have higher farm incomes than non-participating farmers, which may or may not be a result of particip ation in the program. The commercialization aspect of the Jupar program hasnt been fully implemented. Currently they buy and sell only organic cacao through the Coopasb cooperative. In communities where farmers produce mainly cacao, an effective commercial ization system is in place. For other

PAGE 54

43 farmers with more diverse systems, as in Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa, commercialization is more difficult, as it is more difficult to market smaller quantities of many things, and for some products, little market exis ts for organic certified products. Generally, these two communities are not meeting the program goals for forest conservation. Fortaleza has a small community reserve, encompassing about 20% of the communitys total area, but less than half of the farmers there are able to maintain the expected amount of forest on their individua l properties. Lagoa Santa has no forest reserve, and only two farmers meet the goal of 30% forest cover. Data presented here offer no indication that farmers participating in this project conserve more forest than non-participants. These results are consistent with Al ger and Caldas 1998 finding that Bahian farmers on smaller lots are less likely to c onserve forests than t hose on larger lots. Jupara goals for forest conservation are part icularly challenging, then, since all farmers interviewed had landholdings sma ller than 20 hectares. In Lagoa Santa, lots are smaller on average than in Fortaleza, and less forest remains. However, this study did not consider the quant ity of forest present at the start of the Jupar project. Many farmers stated that their property was entirely deforested and converted to agriculture years before they realized that deforestation was a problem, and expressed regret at this loss. Obviousl y, people cannot be expected to conserve something they dont have in the first place. In order to fully justify an integrated conservation and development project like th e Jupar project, monitoring is needed before, during and after the proj ect. It is difficult to eval uate project outcomes if we dont have any baseline data on land cover or agricultural pr actices at the start of the

PAGE 55

44 project. Analysis of satellite imagery might be one way to understand when most of the forest loss occurred, as well as to ob serve trends in forest regrowth. Finally, we have to make sure that both environmental and development goals of ICDPs are realistic. It simply is not realisti c to expect a family of 10 to survive on three hectares of land, as was the case for one family in Lagoa Santa, and still maintain 30% of their three hectares in a natu ral forest reserve. In an evaluation of a USAID funded project in Madagascar, Peters (1998) recognizes this top-dow n approach to defining goals and expectations as one of the major w eaknesses of integrated conservation and development projects. He suggests giving local people a pa rticipatory voice in defining project objectives, as their perspective on wh at might be feasible and important might differ greatly from the perspective of USAID, or in this case, WWF. Browder (2002) makes the important poi nt that ICDPs ofte n lack functional linkages between specific development activi ties and desired conservation outcomes. Results of the Jupar project s upport this criticism. While th e use of organic agricultural practices may contribute to overall ecosyst em health and develop a mindset of environmental stewardship among participants, organic agriculture and resulting increased incomes do not necessarily prevent deforestation. In southern Bahia specifical ly, Alger (1998) points out th at promoting agroforestry by itself does not conserve biodiversity, in fact, it can result in furt her fragmentation of existing forest fragments. In areas with many small farmers, the law requires only a small forest reserve on each farm, and reserv es on individual farms dont conserve much biodiversity if farms and family reserves are disconnected from each other. Conservation in communities of smallholders will require landscap e-level participatory

PAGE 56

45 planning to unify forest rese rves and maintain connectivity between them, and this community process will likely occur separa tely from the family-level process of implementing organic agriculture.

PAGE 57

46 CHAPTER 3 CONSERVATION AND AGRARIAN REFORM IN SOUTHERN BAHIA, THE CASE OF CASCATA Introduction You have probably passed by an encampme nt in your car or on the bus. Maybe you have seen a march of the landless people. Certainly you have seen on television, or in a newspaper or magazine, news of land c onflicts or occupations, write Stedile and Srgio (1993) in A luta pela terra no Brasil (The Fight for Land in Brazil), a small book intended to explain to the wider Brazili an public the basic ideology of the MST ( Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra, The Landless Rural Workers Movement). Groups of rural landless worker s, living in makeshift plastic tents and awaiting settlement by the Brazilian governme nt, are indeed a common sight along the highways in many parts of Brazil. Brazil has the second most unequal distribu tion of land in the world, behind only neighboring Paraguay (Domingos 2002). Eighty-ni ne percent of farms are less than 100 hectares in size and equal 20% of the total la nd area. One percent of farms are more than 1000 hectares in size, and equal 45% of the land area (Domingos 2002). Conflicts over land tenure have been present throughout Brazilian history and continue today. Historically, land reform in Brazil has occurred on lands considered unproductive, often on forested or ecologica lly fragile lands, leading to further environmental degradation and deforestati on as settlers carve out an agricultural livelihood from forested land. Tefilo a nd Garcia (2003) found that of the land

PAGE 58

47 appropriated by INCRA between 1997 and 1999, only 21% of it was in agricultural use before occupation, often because its soil, t opography, or market access was poorly suited for agriculture. In recent years, an outbreak of Witche s Broom Disease has changed the dynamics of this process in Southern Bahia. As pr oductivity of cacao plantations decreased, large landowners were more willing to sell their lands for redistribution through land reform. Higher quality lands are now available for settlement, and the violence once characteristic of land invasions is de creasing (Buschbacher in prep.). In addition to their work in agricultural extension, Jupar has been highly involved in the rural land reform movement in Southe rn Bahia, and changes in the land reform process have led to changes in Jupars community work. The agricultural extension project described in Chapter 2 was origin ally conceived to function in traditional agricultural communities and older, well esta blished land reform communities in which each family managed an individual unit of la nd. In recent years, the project has been adapted to also function on resettled cacao esta tes, where production strategies tend to be more collective. This chap ter explains Jupars involvement in the land reform movement and presents the results of th e agroecology extension project on a newly settled cacao estate, Cascata. Jupar and Land Reform INCRA ( Instituto Nacional de Colonizao e Reforma Agraria or National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform ) is the federal agency responsible for land reform in Brazil and has an office in each Braz ilian state. INCRA is responsible for the purchase of the land from its original ow ner, assessing how many families should be settled onto the property, and deciding who those families will be.

PAGE 59

48 Both INCRA and the communities involve d depend greatly on a handful of land reform NGOs to facilitate the land reform process. The MST (Movement of the Landless Workers), and the CPT (Catholic Pastoral Commission of the Land) are some wellknown examples. Many other organizations al so exist and function similarly, such as MLT (Movement for the Struggle of the Landless) and MSLT (The Land Liberation Movement.) In addition to providing agricultural extens ion services in established communities, Jupar also provides support to a number of encampments , or communities in the process of acquiring land on which to settle. In southern Bahia there are many of these encampments, basically commun ities living in black plastic tents along the highways, indicating their intention to settle on the adjacent land. These people are unemployed plantation workers, sons and daughters of farmers whose landholding is too small to support them, or even city dw ellers looking for a better li fe. The political process involved in the formation of a new land reform community is complicated and often takes years. Most encampments receive assistance from a land reform NGO in applying to INCRA for settlement. According to Cullen et al. (2005), only 5% of land reform projects in Brazil were initiat ed by INCRA. The other 95% we re initiated by land reform NGOs, who organized a group of settlers and petitioned INCRAs cooperation. Settlement is a community process. When land is settled, INCRA grants an Emisso de Posse or right of land use, to the comm unity association rather than to individuals. Generally a community will work with only one land reform NGO, and these NGOs tend to differ in their philosophies in how a community should be managed.

PAGE 60

49 These communities will often live for a number of years in an encampment until they are granted a piece of land, so community organiza tion is very important, both before and after settlement. The land reform NGOs assi st with this organiza tional process and with the development of community leaders. The Jupar extensionists have an extensiv e and complex history of work with land reform over the past 10 years. When they began working with encampments in the mid 1980s, the process usually involved the violent occupation of a piece of land, usually forested land or land of poor soil quality, th at was considered socially unproductive by Brazilian law and thus eligible for reappropr iation, whether the landowner wanted to give up this land or not. Some of these lands were known as latifundos, a term which refers to very large rural landholdings, parts of whic h are often left fallow or forested. Any land which was not currently dedicated to the active production of agri cultural goods, or did not generate employment for local workers, was considered eligible for land reform. According to a 1993 MST report, 180 million hect ares were classified as latifundos in Brazil. Redistribution of these lands is th e focus of the agrarian reform movement (Stedile & Srgio 1993). In 1989, Witches Broom Disease broke out in the cacao plantations of Bahia, and led many plantation owners to stop investing in the labor and fertilizer inputs necessary for cacao production. Lack of care, fertiliza tion, and pruning allowed the disease to spread even more rapidly through the planta tions, further reducing their productivity. This change facilitated the land reform moveme nt in southern Bahia. Unemployment of former plantation workers resulted in an in crease in the number of workers and families becoming involved in the land reform move ments of the time, the MST and others,

PAGE 61

50 including Jupar (Trevizan 1998). With little prospect of future earnings in cacao, owners of the once-lucrative cacao plantations were willi ng to sell their land to the Brazilian government for redistribution among landless settlers, with much less violent conflict than in previous year s (Buschbacher in prep.). For this reason, the Jupar extensionists sometimes referred to Witches Broom Disease as a santa vassoura da bruxa , or Saint Witches Broom. Management of the disease is labor intensive and can be carried out more effectively by smallholders than by large plantati on owners. Most of the recent land reform settlements are on former cacao plantations. Families receive a small area of established cacao, which they clean and prune, replant cacao where necessary, and eventually bri ng back into production. Land reform in Bahia continues to evol ve and many families continue to await resettlement, while living under black pl astic and depending on food aid from the government, churches, and NGOs. While this process is happening throughout Brazil, according to MSTs website ( www.mst.org.br ) (MST 2006), in 2003 Bahia had more encampments than any other state, with 20,000 MST-sponsored individuals awaiting resettlement. Cascata, a Land Reform Settlement Most recently, Jupars work has focused on newer land reform settlements, usually on former cacao plantations. In addi tion, Jupar has worked with encampments, or groups of people awaiting settlement th rough the land reform process. Extension services are provided before the community is settled on the landholding, and landholders have had Jupar support for the entire pe riod of land ownership. Often potential landowners are from urban areas or are fo rmer plantation workers, and have little experience in agriculture and the decisions involved in land management. Extension

PAGE 62

51 programs in encampments focus on community organization, environmental education, and sustainable agriculture and land management, so that when future landowners actually receive their own plot, they are prepared to make environmentally and economically sound decisions. Typically, co mmunities which have recently passed through the encampment process are more unifi ed than older communities, and usually all families participate in the Jupar project. Often residents live in the workers houses left behind by the plantation owners, so all community members live in a central residential area, with agricultural areas located outside of the residential area. Cascata is one cacao plantation community that began collaborating with Jupar while still an encampment. Many differen ces in the production st rategies, biophysical characteristics, age of the community, and leve l of participation in extension activities in Cascata make it difficult to compare directly with older communities like Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa. A small number of interviews were also conducted in Cascata, in order to understand how the project may work differently in different community types, and in order to compare Jupars past projects w ith their current and future directions. Site Description Cascata is located in the municipality of Ubaitaba, Bahia. Cascata was an abandoned cacao plantation that was sold for land reform. Forty families were settled there in 1998. The land titles were granted not to individuals but to the community association, although each family was assigned an area of 4-5 hectares of the plantation to maintain and harvest. In addition, a bout 180 hectares of Atlantic Forest were designated as a community forest reserve. Cascata farmers produce cacao almost exclusively. Most of the land was planted in cacao already, and little open area was availa ble for planting manioc and other food

PAGE 63

52 crops. Each family harvests cacao from its individual area. Cacao seeds must be fermented and dried before sale, and this pr ocess is done collectivel y in a communal area, using infrastructure left behind by the pl antation owner. The entire community landholding is organic certified and the cacao is marketed through the Jupar cooperative. In order to receive the higher organic price, the cacao must also be top quality, which depends on correct fermentation and drying, so the community decided to designate a few community members to complete this pro cess in hopes of a more uniform and higher quality product. In comparison to Fortaleza, Lagoa Santa, and other local smallholder communities, the standard of living in Cascata is quite high. Unlike in the older communities studied, very few Cascata residents work outside of the community. A few have off-farm income from retirement pensions. The community is located along a majo r highway, allowing for easy access to public transportation, local markets, secondary education and health services. Because Cascata was establis hed on a former plantation, much of the infrastructure was already in place, incl uding a dozen workers houses where families are now living, a large building for meetings and events, a church and school, production areas for processing cacao, and a large cacao dr yer. Additional houses were constructed to accommodate additional families. Families enjoy well-constructed brick homes, electricity, running water, modern sanitary f acilities, and even a public telephone. All of the residences are located in the central community area and the cacao plantation areas surround this central area. In Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa, every family lives on its own piece of land, and residents are fairly isolated from their neighbors. Cascatas centralized model greatly facilitates community organization and cooperation.

PAGE 64

53 Methods Twelve households were randomly selected for household interviews, as described in Chapter 2. Data was collected on particip ation in the Jupar program, use of target agroecological practices, land use patterns, and other socioeconomic conditions that might affect a familys ability to meet project goals. As in Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa, a partic ipation score was calculated for each family and data were entered into linear regression models. Descriptive statistics were compiled fo r each of the three communities including a number of factors, includi ng family characteristics and land use patterns. A MANOVA analysis was used to assess differences across communities. Tamhane T2 Post-Hoc Test was used to test the statis tical difference between each pa ir of communities. MANOVA was selected for its ability to compare multiple dependant variables in three or more categories while taking into account possibl e correlations between the dependant variables. Results Participation Although Cascata entered the project later, participation in Cascata was comparable to participation in the othe r two communities (Figure 3-1). In Cascata, all families participated in the Jupar project (Figure 3-1) and all maintain organic certificati on, and are utilizing, at mini mum, the organic practices required for certification. Cacao agroforest ry was already established when residents received their plots, and a community forest reserve sets aside 40% of the communitys total area in natural forest. Because little vari ation in participation, practices, or land

PAGE 65

54 cover existed among families interviewe d, linear regression models showed no significant effect of participati on on agricultural practi ces, farm income, or land cover. Community: 1=Fortaleza, 2=Lagoa Santa, 3=Cascata4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0Participation Score60 50 40 30 20 10 0 MembershipCoopasb Member Past Member Non-Member Figure 3-1. Range of participation scores in Fortaleza, Lagoa Santa, and Cascata. Therefore, only descriptive statistics ar e presented here. Table 3-1 presents household data collected in Fortaleza, La goa Santa, and Cascata and allows for comparison between Cascata and older communities. On average, Cascata residents have more years of education, fewer off-farm wo rkers, and a larger percentage of income coming from agriculture than Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa residents. Cascata has a smaller family landholding size than Fortaleza and a si milar size to Lagoa Santa. Including the community forest reserves, Cascata has more fo rest and less area in a nnual crops than the other two communities.

PAGE 66

55Table 3-1. Descriptive statistics by gr oups for three communities. indicates statistically signif icant difference (p 0.05) between communities as measured by MANOVA analysis. Statistical relationships are shown between each community, Fortaleza (F), Lagoa Santa (L) and Cascata (C) as m easured by Tamhane T2 Post-Hoc Test. Fortaleza Lagoa Santa Cascata Statistical Relationship Mean Std.dev Mean Std.dev. Mean Std.dev. Between Communities Family size Total family members living in community 6.07 4.19 7.35 5.56 5.33 1.87 On-farm workers 1.85 1.30 2.65 1.43 2.06 1.00 Off-farm workers* 1.23 1.00 0.86 0.83 0.54 0.69 F = L = C < F Children living outside community 3.65 3.19 3.00 3.28 2.56 3.60 Average age of all family members 31.76 12.8 29.31 10.68 32.40 13.32 Head of household age 54.03 13.3 55.60 11.15 52.92 15.48 Years of education Head of household* 1.83 1.91 1.75 2.75 4.67 2.90 F = L < C > F Ages 18-30* 7.00 3.37 5.04 3.22 10.60 5.35 F > L < C > F Ages 31-50* 4.07 3.11 2.73 3.12 11.45 14.20 F > L < C > F Ages 51+* 1.05 1.25 0.33 0.97 3.43 3.39 F > L < C > F Years farming on current property* 20.10 9.09 29.00 19.03 5.72 2.90 F = L > C < F Family Landholding Total area* 15.96 1.30 9.43 7.40 10.13 4.49 F > L = C < F % Agroforestry* 39.1% 15.6% 74.6% 20.3% 46.1% 12.6% F < L > C = F Age of Oldest Agroforestry System 17.68 8.80 21.22 10.26 Unknown Age of Newest Agroforestry System 6.45 5.07 5.91 4.14 Unknown % Natural Forest (includes community reserve)* 36.0% 17.9% 8.0% 15.2% 40% 0% F > L < C = F Years since most recent deforestation 20.10 9.09 18.91 16.09 Unknown % Fallow/Forest Regrowth 12.3% 11.5 8.4% 10.4% 6.2% 6.8% % Annual Crops* 7.3% 6.5% 11.1% 14.4% 1.9% 2.5% F = L > C < F % Pasture 5.4% 5.8% 3.0% 3.8% 2% 0%

PAGE 67

56Table 3-1. Continued Fortaleza Lagoa Santa Cascata Statistical Relationship Mean Std.dev Mean Std.dev. Mean Std.dev. Between Communities Total Income in Brazilian Reais 8700 4617 8581 4341 7330 4021 Farm Income 3775 2290 5375 3716 4919 3545 Other Income 4925 3689 3206 3717 2413 3535 % income from farming* 45.2% 26.3% 66.6% 30.8% 74.5% 31.3% F = L = C > F

PAGE 68

57 Adoption of Agroecological Practices As in the other two communities, farmers implemented some practices more often than others. In Cascata, th e preferred practices differ s lightly (Figure 3-2). Green manures, homemade liquid organic fertilizer composting, and contour erosion barriers were implemented least often, and crop rotati on was also implemented less often than in the other two communities. As in Fortaleza and Cascata, mulching and multicropping are used by most farmers. All properties in Cas cata obtained organic ce rtification as a group, so 100% of farmers have replaced chemical fertilizers with the commercial organic fertilizer that Jupar sells, as chemical fert ilizers are strictly prohibi ted. Only one farmer reports burning his field, a nd others stated that burn ing is also prohibited. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Green ManuresHomemade Organic Fertilizer CompostingContour Erosion Barriers Commercial Organic Fertilizer No BurningNo Agrochemicals Crop RotationMulching Multi-croppingPercent of landowners adopting practice Participants Figure 3-2. Adoption of agroecologi cal practices in Cascata. Land Use The entire Cascata settlement meets Jupars land cover goals of 30% natural forest cover and 40% agroforestry. Two large comm unity forest reserves encompass 40% of

PAGE 69

58 the communitys total area. Most of the ot her 60% of the settlemen t was already planted in cacao agroforestry, although in poor condition. Each family received a parcel already planted in cacao, and some farmers also have a small area for annual crops, usually where cacao trees have died of Witches Broom Dis ease. There is also a small community pasture area for work animals and some co mmunally owned cattle. Figure 3-3 shows the distribution of land use in Ca scata, including the community managed forest reserve. 48% 6% 41% 2% 3% Agroforestry Annual Crops Pasture Capoeira Forest Figure 3-3. Land Use Dist ribution in Cascata. Discussion Agroforestry and Conservation in Cascata Jupar considers Cascata to be one of their greatest success stories. This community is very different from Fortale za and Lagoa Santa and may not be directly comparable. In Cascata, all families partic ipate in the Jupar program and sell products through the Jupar cooperative. One hundred percent of families are organic certified and as such are required to use only organic fertilizer s. All interviewees reported eliminating chemical fertilizer and using a commercial organic fertilizer, and only one

PAGE 70

59 farmer reported using fire. For this reason, th ere may not be enough variation in levels of participation or agricultural practices to show significant results here. Preferred agricultural practices are slightly different in Cascata than in the other communities. Fewer farmers reported using crop rotation, probably because this is usually done at the beginning stages of esta blishing an agroforestry system, and most Cascata farmers received already establishe d plots. This can be a challenge in communities on established estates, as there is little open area in which to plant annual crops for household consumption. Homemade liquid organic fertili zer was more popular here than in the other communities, possibl y because the community association owns several cows, so manure is readily available to use in preparing th e homemade fertilizer. A biogas project is underway to compost manure and produce methane gas to power a cacao dryer, but as of the time of these interviews, farmers were not yet using the compost produced by that project. Knowing th at different types of communities prefer different agroecological practices, Jupar extensionists can adapt future extension programs to promote the practices most f itting to each type of community. In Cascata, two large forest reserves cons erve 40% of the settlements total area in primary Atlantic Forest. Farmers have access to only as much land as they can use for agriculture; the forested land is strictly off-limits to agricultural activity. This is perhaps the best scenario to ensure long-term forest conservation. Forested areas are large and contiguous, rather than fragmented into sma ller family-owned forest reserves as in Fortaleza. Because the farming system in Ca scata is intensive and permanent, and was already established when farmers took possessi on of the land, Cascata farmers may feel less need to clear forests than farmers in othe r communities. Soil quality is also better in

PAGE 71

60 Cascata than in the other two communities which allows for more intensive cacao production on relatively small parcels. Community members in Cascata have hopes of one day benefiting from their forest reserve as an ecotourism destination. In a ddition to the forest reserve, Cascata has several other unusual resources th at might make it a suitable eco tourism site in the future, including a beautiful waterf all with a large pool suitable for swimming, and a large community house, originally the plantation ow ners home, that might provide suitable guest rooms, as well as optimal location along a major road with frequent bus service. Although ecotourism is only an idea now, the pr esence of these resources may provide an additional incentive to conserve fo rests and other natural resources. Future Directions for Jupar Jupars current work focuses mainly on communities like Cascata: new land reform settlements on former cacao estates. While it is important to recognize the need for extension services to improve both livelihoods and conservation practices in all rural communities, regardless of age, location, or production strategy, communities like Cascata are in many ways the ideal places for Jupars work, especially from a conservation perspective. There are several reasons for this. First, Cascata and communities like it tend to be highly organized. Community members live close together in a small residen tial area, rather than in isolated homes on individual landholdings. This f acilitates the pa rticipation of most, if not all, community members, and makes it easy to organize m eetings and activities. Some important management decisions, such as the designa tion of community reserves and organic certification of the entire estate, are made collectivel y rather than individually.

PAGE 72

61 Secondly, the biophysical conditions on aba ndoned cacao estates tend to be much more suited for agriculture than those of olde r land reform settlements. Historically, the best lands were occupied by wealthy estate owners, and settlers invaded poorer lands. Many settlements still exist on these lands, and in several cases, agriculture has proven inviable given the poor soil qua lity. In Cascata, landowne rs can produce cacao, a crop that is demanding in soil nutri ents but produces a lucrative product, with a minimum of fertilizer inputs. Cacao is also advantageous because there is a market for organic cacao. Finally, by actively participati ng in the land reform process, Jupar is able to gain access to these communities before they are settled on the land and begin educating future farmers before destructive practices ar e in place. In many cases, new settlers have little farming experience, and it may be easier to teach agroecologica l practices to a new farmer than to change the well-esta blished practices of a veteran. Also, as facilitators of the land reform pr ocess, Jupar extens ionists are able to choose landholdings to target for land reform and are currently working to choose areas that have conservation value. In this way, la rger remaining patches of Atlantic Forest can be preserved as community reserves within new settlements.

PAGE 73

62 CHAPTER 4 EFFECTS OF AN NGO EXTENSION PROGRAM ON LAND USE CHANGE ON SMALL FARM PROPERTIES IN THE ATLANTIC FOREST OF SOUTHERN BAHIA Introduction The use of remote sensing technology ha s become a common method for assessing land use and land cover change (LULCC) in ma ny areas of the world. Researchers have used satellite imagery to observe vegetation pa tterns at a landscape-wide scale, and also to observe changes over time through analysis of a time series of images. Remote sensing plays an important role in monitoring tr opical deforestation in regions such as the Brazilian Amazon (McCracken et al. 2002), Mexicos Yucatan Peninsula (Vance & Geoghegan 2002), and Southeast Asia (Rindfuss et al. 2002). While remote sensing is a powerful tool, it allows us to examine only the physical, spatial, and temporal aspects of land cover ch ange. Many researchers have paired remote sensing studies with on-the-ground data co llection, including in terviews of local landowners, in order to better understand the social, economic, and political drivers of deforestation and other land cover changes. Although interviews may take place at the level of households or indivi dual landholdings, remote sens ing analyses are commonly broader in scale, encompassi ng entire regions, watersheds, protected areas and their buffer zones, or villages. In one example, Sunderlin et al. (2000) used satellite imagery to observe a nationwide trend in deforestation following an economic crisis, and a survey of 5000 households in Cameroon to help expl ain this change, but households were not linked to a specific location on the landscape.

PAGE 74

63 Although landscape-wide studies are useful for determining broad-scale trends in land cover change, understanding region-wide hab itat availability for a particular species, assessing the connectivity of landscape elements, or plan ning future protected areas, many land use decisions are made at a much finer scale. Especially in developing countries where small-scale agriculture is common, individual landowners make decisions about which crops to plant and wher e, whether or not to convert forest to agriculture, which trees to cut, how much fe rtilizer and pesticide to use, and how to manage water resources. A comprehensive understanding of the forces driving land use and land cover change requires an understa nding of the household-level decision making process (Rindfuss et al. 2002). Very few LULCC studies have focused sp ecifically on change at the household plot level, due in part to methodological difficulties inherent in identifying the precise location of a small farm plot on a satellite image. Several studies in the Brazilian Amazon have linked households with specifi c plots of land (McCracken et al. 2002; Walsh et al. 2002). These studies have been facilitated by the fact that plots in most newer Amazonian settlements are of a uniform size and shape, and characterized by a fishbone pattern of deforest ation, allowing for easy identif ication of each landholding on the satellite image. McCracken et al. ( 2002) initially used di gital property maps obtained from INCRA, the government ag ency responsible for delineating new settlements. They found that these maps we re often inaccurate or incomplete, since their purpose was simply to identify which plots belonged to whom, not to conduct detailed GIS analyses. They were able to deve lop a suitable farm property grid for 402

PAGE 75

64 households using a combination of the INCRA maps, GPS points coll ected in the field, and mathematical interp olation of GIS layers. In some study regions, no property maps are available, and properties may be irregularly shaped or not legally owned by the user. In these cases, researchers have had to create property maps using GPS points co llected in the field, combined with sketch maps of the property and identification of ke y landscape features visible on the image. This method is time and labor intensive. Walsh et al. (2002) employed this method, along with a base maps of roads, to iden tify 418 landholdings in the Ecuadorean Amazon. Vance and Geoghegan (2002) used GPS points and participatory mapping to outline 188 properties within the ejido systems in Quintana Roo and Campeche, Mexico. In other regions, landowners reside in one place, while agricultural activities occur somewhere else. This was the case in nor theastern Thailand, where Rindfuss et al. (2002) selected 310 villages and experiment ed with various methodologies to link households to their field plots. This process is even more difficult and labor intensive when agricultural plots do not contain the dwelling unit. In each of these studies, researchers inte rviewed parcel owners and compiled data on socioeconomic conditions and land use deci sions of each family. These data were then related to land cover data in order to better understand why different families might make different land use decisions. This study will employ a combination of these methods to carry out a propertylevel study of land use change in Fortaleza, a rural settlement near Una, Brazil, and to further develop the methodology for such resear ch. As noted by previous researchers, difficulties in accurately identifying individual properties limit the accuracy of results.

PAGE 76

65 Thirty household interviews were conducted in June and July of 2005, as part of an evaluation of the Jupar Agroecology Exte nsion Program. Through a partnership with WWF, Jupar has been working in the area since 1995 to promote organic agroforestry and forest conservation. Specific progr am goals included the implementation of agroecological practices and maintenance of 40% of each landholding in agroforestry and 30% in natural forest cover. Taking into account a large community forest reserve, individual landholders were expected to ma intain 12.5% of their own landholding in a forest reserve, to maintain 30% of the ove rall community landscape in forest cover. Results of the program evaluation interviews indicated that while many participants have implemented organic agricultural practi ces, only 42% of participants, and 43% of all farmers interviewed, have maintained a forest reserve equal to at least 12.5% of their property. Interview data offer only a snapshot of one point in time. Many landowners report that although the area was almost completely fore sted when the first settlers arrived in the 1970s, extensive deforestation had occurred be fore the Jupar program began in 1995. More recent settlers reported significantly more remaining forest cover than those who had been living in Fortaleza for longer periods of time. Knowing the distribution of land cover types that landowners repo rt at present, this remote sensing analysis was designed to assess the extent of forest cover in the co mmunity before and after the Jupar project. Images from 1986, well before the project began, and 2001, the most recent image available, were analyzed to address the following research questions: How has forest cover changed in Fortaleza between 1986 and the present? How much forest cover was present be fore the Jupar program began? Is the program asking landowners to cons erve something that wasnt present to begin with?

PAGE 77

66 Are program participants more likely to allow forest regrowth than nonparticipants? Is land cover data reported in interviews consistent with land cover data observed on satellite images? Study Region Fortaleza Fortaleza is a land reform settlement near Una, BA. Fifty families are settled on 1102 hectares, with an average lot size of 16 hectares (INCRA 2006). Approximately 250 hectares are in community areas including a forest reserve and a small community cacao plantation. Families began settling the area in the mid 1970s. At that time, the area was completely forested. Most of the se ttlers in Fortaleza grew up on their parents farms or worked on nearby rubber plan tations before settling there. INCRA ( Instituto Nacional de Colonizao e Reforma Agraria the government agency responsible for land reform) officially divided the land and gave titles to these landholders in 1997. At this time, eight ne w lots were created along the westernmost perimeter of the community, in an area that had been a part of the community forest reserve. By locating famili es along the perimeter of the reserve, INCRA hoped to avoid invasion of this land by outsiders. Eight familie s were moved from their original plot of land to one of these new, completely forested plots, and other families had a portion of their original land officially titled to a neighbor. In most cases, the male head of household re ceived a title to hi s individual parcel of land. Farmers in Fortaleza produce mainly rubber and cacao as cash crops, as well as some manioc, corn, fruit and ve getable crops for consumption. Of the 50 families settled in Fortaleza, nine are currently members of Jupar and COOPASB, Jupars agricultural cooperative. Nine families were formerly members and

PAGE 78

67 dropped out, and the remainder of residents may have participated in some Jupar training events but never formally joined th e cooperative. For the purposes of this analysis, we compare members, former members, non-members, and families on new lots. The families on new lots are also non-me mbers but are analyzed separately due to the more recent process of la nd cover change on these lots. The Atlantic Forest of Southern Bahia Fortaleza is located in the Atlantic Forest Region of Southern Bahia, Brazil, and has been targeted for conservation efforts due to its proximity to the Una Biological Reserve. Figure 4-1 shows the location of the study site and the reserve. The Una Reserve encompasses about 11,000 hectares of what remains of the Atlantic Forest ecosystem (Buschbacher in prep.). The Atla ntic Forest, which once covered much of the eastern coast of Brazil as well as parts of Argentina and Paraguay, is one of the worlds most diverse ecosystems, and also one of th e most endangered. The first mapping of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest was undertaken in 1990 with the part icipation of IBAMA (Instituto Brasiliero do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renovveis, or the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) and the Fundao SOS Mata Atlantica (SOS Atlantic Forest Foundation), a prominent Brazilian NGO. According to this project, the Atla ntic Forest originally covered 15% of the Brazilian national territo ry, and has been reduced to a mere 7% of its original area, or about 1% of the Brazilian National Territor y. The Atlantic Forest is home to 108 million people, or about 60% of the populat ion of Brazil (Hirota 2003).

PAGE 79

68 Figure 4-1. Location of study site. The blue box indicates the Southern Bahia region with the original extent of the Atlantic Fore st shown in yellow and remaining forest in green. The smaller black box indi cates the area around Fortaleza and the Una Reserve. May 2001 Landsat image of the reserve and Foratleza is shown on the right. The Atlantic Forest Biome is on the Global 200 list of globally outstanding ecoregions, and is considered a Biodiversity Hot Spot (Mittermeier et al. 1999). The region supports over 1600 species of terrestri al vertebrates and 20,000 species of vascular plants, including more than 6000 endemic pl ant species and more than 500 endemic animal species (Mittermeier et al. 1999). In order to set priorities for conserving what remains of the fragmented Atlantic Forest, two biodiversity corri dors have been designated; the Serra do Mar Corridor, which extends southwest of Rio de Janeiro through Minas Gerais, Sao Paulo, and Paran states, and the Corridor Central, in Southe rn Bahia and Espiritu Santo (Figure 4-2) (Aguiar et al. 2003). The Una Reserve and Fort aleza fall within the Central Corridor.

PAGE 80

69 Within the Central Corridor, researchers have documented extremely high tree diversity (Thomas et al. 1998), twelve endemic prim ate species (Pinto 1994) and 50% of the known endemic bird species of the Atlantic Forest (Aguiar et al. 2003). The Central Corridor encompasses almost 12 million hectares, and about 12% of its total area is covered in native forest (Conservation Internat ional 2006). The corridor contains at least 40 protected areas, 70% of whic h are state-owned. The aver age protected area size in the region is 93.13 km2 (Aguiar et al. 2003). Financial re sources needed to enforce protected areas and establish new ones are limited, so an emphasis on privately owned protected areas and community managed ones, like the comm unity reserve in Fortaleza, is essential for the long-term conservation of the Atlantic Forest. http://www.corredores.org.br/?area=c Figure 4-2. Location of the Cent ral and Serra do Mar Corridors. The Central Corridor includes the cacao growing region of Southern Bahia. Currently about 600,000 hectares of Theobroma cacao a medium-sized understory tree, are planted in this region (B uschbacher in prep.), many main tain some of the original

PAGE 81

70 forest canopy or are interspersed with patche s of natural forest (A lger 1998; Alves 1990; Buschbacher in prep.). This regions cacao agroforests have generated considerable interest within the conservation community fo r their potential to maintain forest-like landscapes and serve as biological corridors between blocks of fragmented forest (Alves 1990). Researchers in many countries have demo nstrated that while agroforestry systems are no substitute for intact forest, some w ildlife species are able to use cacao-based systems to some extent as a corridor between areas of more suitable habitat, with more diverse systems providing more suitable hab itat than less diverse systems (Alves 1990; Greenberg 1998; Greenberg et al. 2000; Laurance 2004; Re itsma et al. 2001). Pardini (2004) carried out such a study on small ma mmals on fragmented areas of the Una Biological Reserve. For this reason, conser vation programs like the one implemented by Jupar, targeting cacao producers and producer s of other agroforestry crop such as rubber, cloves, palms, and fruit, are importa nt to maintain connec tivity of the regions remaining forest fragments. Remote sensing studies in the Atlantic Forest The presence of extensive agroforestry fu rther complicates remote sensing studies in this region. In regions such as the Am azon and Mexicos dry tr opical forests, land cover can usually be divided into forested and non-forested, as annua l crops or pastures for livestock are common land uses. Agrofo rests, on the other hand, can be extremely difficult to separate from natural forests and forest regrowth, especially in the case of cabruca systems, in which cacao is planted in th e shade of natural forest overstory trees (Lemos Costa 2000; Saatchi et al. 2001), or very old agroforestry systems. Fortaleza residents harvest rubber and cacao from agrofo restry systems that may be more than

PAGE 82

71 thirty years old, althoug h these are usually not cabruca systems but mixed plantations of rubber, cacao, and other fruit species. Only a few remote sensing studies have b een carried out in the Atlantic Forest region. Lemos Costa (2000); Saatchi et al. (2001), and Araujo (1997) all carried out broad scale classifications of the Southe rn Bahia region using Landsat Imagery and NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index). NDVI is a vegetation index commonly used as a measure of plant biomass. Lemos and Araujo both defined forested areas, agroforests and open areas by assigning a characteristic range of NDVI values to each. Use of NDVI alone, however, may be unreliable, because NDVI has been shown to be ineffective in classifying uneven aged, humid tropical forests where the biomass can be very high (Sader et al. 1989). Several other studies have relied on more expensive, higher resolution imagery to distinguish between similar la nd cover classes like forests and agroforestry, such as IKONOS imagery (Guanes Rego & Koch 2003), SIR-C Radar imagery (Saatchi et al. 2001), and CASI imagery, which is similar to an aerial photograph (Olson 1998). Due to the financial constraints of this study this approach was not considered. Methods Interviews A total of 30 household interviews were c onducted in Fortaleza in June and July of 2005. The fifty existing households were classified as partic ipants, former participants, or non-participants in the Jupar project. Current members of the Jupars agricultural cooperative, Coopasb, were considered pa rticipants, past members were former participants, and non-members were considered non-participants. All of the participants and former participants were interviewe d, and of the remaining non-participants, a

PAGE 83

72 random sample of 10 was selected, for a to tal of 30 interviews. Interview content included questions concerning family demogr aphics, agricultural practices, and land cover distribution, and participati on in Jupar training activities. Participatory Mapping and Training Points For each household interviewed, the researcher also toured the property with the landowner to verify information obtained in th e interview, and to collect GPS training points and a brief description of each of the land cover types present on the property for use in image classification. Farmers re ported five land cover types: Forests, Agroforestry, Capoeira , which includes forest regrowth and fallowed areas, Annual Crops, and Pasture. To assist participan ts in describing their propertys land cover distribution, a participatory ma pping activity was carried out in which participants were asked to draw a simple sketch map of thei r landholding, including agroforestry systems and forested areas, areas of annual crops and pastures, road s, waterways, and houses. A representative sketch is shown in Figur e 4-3. GPS points were collected along the perimeter and corners of these sketches, a nd at other important landscape features, to assist in placing the property boundary on the image. Image Processing Landsat images from September 11, 1986 and May 23, 2001 were acquired from the University of Marylands Global Land Cover Facility (University of Maryland 2006). Image dates were chosen based on availa bility of cloud-free imagery, and seasonal differences in vegetation may influence re sults somewhat. The most recent Landsat images (2003-present) are affected by an e quipment malfunction and were not used for this study.

PAGE 84

73 Figure 4-3. Property sketch cr eated by a community member. Images were subset to a manageable si ze. The 2001 image was georectified to a map of waterways provided by IESB (Instituto de Estudos Socioambientais do Sul da Bahia). Fortaleza is located in a very rural area, roads are not paved and are not visible on the image. The 1986 image was then georec tified to the 2001 image. Images were calibrated to remove differences in haze and light angle between the two image dates. An NDVI layer and a texture layer were added to the original image, to provide additional information for image classification. The most difficult part of a property-le vel remote sensing study is locating the properties on the image. INCRA in Salvador provided a digital map of Fortaleza. The

PAGE 85

74 map included only the community outline, roads, and streams; individual property outlines were not included, and UTM coordinate s appeared to be off by a factor of 1000. Jupar provided a photocopy of another map, also produced by INCRA, which did include property boundaries. This photocopi ed map was scanned and georectified in Erdas Imagine, using points extracted by hand and multiplied by 1000 from the digital map. The scanned, georectified map was then traced with a mouse to create an independent vector layer that could be proj ected on top of the image. This multistep process created some error in the location of property boundaries, and some GPS points collected in the field did not fall into the correct property polygons. INCRA maps are not particularly accurate to begin with, as not ed by other researchers (McCracken et al. 2002), since their main purpose is simply to ke ep records of who owns which lot, not to conduct scientific research. Accuracy of this analysis also depends on the accuracy of the IESB map used for image geor ectification. Additional GPS data from the field could improve the accuracy of this map. Howeve r, the location of se veral large landscape features, such as the community forest reserve and a large cleared ranch just to the south of the community boundary, confirm that the vect or layer is in approximately the correct location. The vector layer was projected onto the im ages and images were subset again to include only Fortaleza. Images were classified using methods of unsupervised classification (Jensen 2005). Computer-gener ated classes were identified as Forest, Agroforestry and Forest Regrowth, Cleared Areas, and Clouds and Shadows, based on training points collected in th e field and general knowledge of the landscape. Farmers reported five land cover categories, but since some of these are difficult to separate on the

PAGE 86

75 image, images were classified into only thr ee classes, plus clouds a nd shadows. Forest on the image could include forest and some mature forest regrowth or very old agroforestry systems. Agroforestry and Forest Regrowth were one category for the purposes of image classification, and include agroforestry and regrowth that farmers reported as capoeira . Cleared Areas include a nnual crops, pastures, and some recently fallowed capoeiras. Classifications were imported into ArcGIS and separate layers were created for each land use class for each image date. Cl ouds and shadows were eliminated from the analysis. The vector layer was modified so that each landholding was a separate polygon with its own identification number. Using the zonal statistics tool, the area of Forest, Agroforestry/Regrowth, and Cleared Areas within each polygon was calculated for the 1986 and 2001 classifications. Percent change in each land cover type between 1986 and 2001 was calculated for each polygon. Results Land Use Classifications Classifications of 1986 and 2001 images show areas of forest, agroforestry or regrowth, and open areas within property po lygons and communal areas (Figures 4-4 and 4-5). Areas in which the land use changed from the 1986 image to the 2001 image are highlighted in Figure 4-6. Properties were divided into several categories for the purposes of this analysis. Ta ble 4-1 shows distribution of Fo rest, Agroforestry (AF), and Cleared Areas for property owners who participat ed in the Jupar program, former Jupar participants, and non-participants. Lots which were not yet in use in 1986 were analyzed separately and are labeled New Lots. (All of the families on new lots were also non-

PAGE 87

76 participants, but results for non-participants on new lots are not included in results for non-participants on older lots.) The community reserve was al so analyzed separately. Figure 4-4. Land Use Classifi cation for Fortaleza, 1986.

PAGE 88

77 Figure 4-5. Land use classi fication for Fortaleza, 2001

PAGE 89

78 Figure 4-6. Area of Land Cover Change in Fortaleza,1986 2001

PAGE 90

79 Table 4-1. Land use change in Fortaleza, 1986-2001. Forest 1986 Forest 2001 % Change in Forest AF/R 1986 AF/R 2001 % Change in AF/R Cleared 1986 Cleared 2001 % Change in Cleared Non-Participants 16% 24% 8% 40% 46% 6% 38% 34% -4% Former Participants 25% 27% 2% 50% 48% -2% 21% 25% 5% Participants 14% 34% 20% 44% 35% -8% 41% 35% -5% New Lots 84% 16% -68% 5% 16% 11% 7% 28% 22% Community Reserve 81% 78% -3% 14% 16% 2% 5% 6% 1% Total 32% 31% -2% 35% 39% 3% 28% 31% 2% Figure 4-7 shows the percent change in each cover class for lots owned by participants, former participants, and non-part icipants, as well as on new lots and within the community forest reserve, and for the en tire community area. Th e overall quantity of these three land use classes remained essent ially the same in Fortaleza between 1986 and 2001, but the spatial distribution of forest patches, agrofore stry, and cleared areas have changed. Several new lots have been settled in what was once a forested area, forest cover has decreased in these areas as well as in the community forest reserve. Meanwhile, forest cover has increased on older agricultural lots. Forest cover increased by 20% on lots owned by Jupar participan ts, compared with a 9% increase on nonparticipants lots, and 2% increase on former participants lots. In addition, the land cover maps show that much of the increase in forest cover occurs along two riparian areas.

PAGE 91

80 Land Use Change in Fortaleza, 1986-2001-70% -50% -30% -10% 10% 30%NPFPPNEWRESERVETOTALPercent Change Forest AF/Regrowth Open Figure 4-7. Land use change in Fortaleza on properties owned by nonparticipants (NP), former participants (FP), and current part icipants (P) in the Jupar project, as well as on newer lots and within the community forest reserve. Comparison with Interview Data The participants in this study reported a land use distri bution similar to the one observed on the Landsat image. Figure 48 shows the average land use distribution reported by interviewees, and Figure 4-9 shows the community-wide distribution observed on the 2001 classificati on. The interview data included additional classes which are difficult to discern on satellite im agery; forest regrowth and fallows are a separate category, and open areas are di vided into annual crops and pastures.

PAGE 92

81 Land Use in Fortaleza as observed on 2001 Landsat Image38% 31% 31% Agforestry/Regrowth Cleared Areas Forest Figure 4-8. Distribution of la nd uses in Fortaleza as measur ed by classification of 2001 Landsat data. Land use in Fortaleza as reported by farmers 39% 8% 5% 11% 37% Agroforestry Annual Crops Pasture Capoeira Forest Figure 4-9. Distribution of land uses in Foratleza as reported by farmers interviewed in 2005.

PAGE 93

82 Discussion Remote Sensing Analysis This analysis shows that the overall proporti ons of forest, agroforestry or forest regrowth, and open areas in Fortaleza were nearly the same in 2001 as in 1986, with slight increases in agroforestry (3%) and open spaces (2%), and a slight decrease in forest (-2%). However, analysis of the satellite im agery reveals that the spatial distribution of forest patches has changed considerably since 1986. In the eastern part of the community, where settlers have been present longest, and wher e little forest existed in 1986, we see regeneration of forested areas, es pecially in two ripa rian corridors which run north-south through the community. Areas classified as fores t, then, include not only the remaining original forest but some ar eas of forest regrowth. Once the secondary forest reaches a certain statur e, it becomes indistinguishable from mature forest on the satellite image. In some areas of the community, ripari an zones are marked by a steep decline toward a small stream, and farmers might find these sloped areas unsuitable for agriculture. Many interviewees cited the prot ection of water resources as a main reason for conserving forest. Most families depend on natural springs along this stream as their source of drinking water, and several farmers told of incidences in which streams had dried up after the removal of a forest patch, a nd reappeared as the forest was allowed to regenerate. Alternately, GPS points collected in the fiel d suggest that a few of these areas that appear to be forested are actually mature agroforestry systems, which appeared as young trees in 1986 but are now la rge enough to be mistaken for forest in the Landsat classification. Some farmers reported agrofore stry systems more than 30 years old that

PAGE 94

83 included some very large trees, primarily rubber ( Hevea brasilensis ), shade species planted with cacao, and a few very la rge fruit trees including jackfruit ( Artocarpus heterophyllus ) and mango ( Mangifera spp. ). The eight westernmost lots in the community were not yet settled in 1986 and were still completely or mostly forested. INCR A officially demarcated and titled the entire community in 1997, and at that time several fa milies were relocated to the perimeter of this forested area. According to local residents, INCRA reasoned that by locating families around the perimeter of the community forest reserve, invasion of this land by non-community members could be prevented. Unfortunately, most of the relocated families were granted completely forested la nd, and so had no choice but to deforest it. Sixty-eight percent of the forest on these lots had disappeared by 2001. Within the community forest reserve, we al so see a 3% decrease in forest cover. This could be accounted for by the fact that a lot on the edge of the reserve was used to build a second school in the mid 1990s. A visit to the area does indicate some level of human disturbance and removal of logs, a nd some families along the perimeter of the reserve may be using land actually locat ed within the reserve. Although some degradation is evident, the community forest reserve is still by far the largest patch of forest in the community, and still the easiest way to conserve forest in Fortaleza, as no one person has autonomous decision-making pow er for this land, and the community has established an expectation for conservation of the area. A landowner-by-landowner analysis of the lo ts in the eastern part of Fortaleza offers good news for the effectiveness of the Jupar program. Current program participants appear to be far more likely than non-participants to allow forest regrowth on

PAGE 95

84 their properties (or the devel opment of very old agroforestry systems). Forest cover increased by 20% on participan ts lots, compared to an 8% increase on non-participants lots, and a 2% increase on former participants lots. Participants had the least forest in 1986 (14%) and have the most forest of a ny group now (34%). Participation in a conservation program may be only one factor influencing this change. Location of the lots along steep or riparian areas may also be a factor. Some of the participants were among the first settlers to arrive in Fortaleza in the 1970s, so the development of very old agroforestry systems or regene ration of more mature forest patches may be a pattern that develops only after many years of settlement. Comparison with Interview Data By interviewing farmers, we can get a more specific idea of the possible land uses within each of the th ree categories observable on the image. Interview data represents the mean of a sample of 30 farmers, while th e image analysis include s all 50 properties in Fortaleza, the community reserve, and two smaller community areas. Farmers reported a land use distribution fa irly consistent with the distribution observed through image analysis. Farmers reported slightly mo re forest and agroforestry than appeared on the image, and slightly less cleared area. This could be because some young agroforestry systems or recently fallowe d areas appeared as cleared areas on the image classification, or because cleared areas actually decreased between 2001, when the image was collected and 2005, when the interv iews were conducted. Interview data are based on a representative sample of 30 house holds, weighted so that participating and non-participating househ olds are proportionately re presented, while the Landsat classification generated data for all landhol dings; this could also explain slight

PAGE 96

85 discrepancies. Overall, the results were si milar, and this serves to confirm both the accuracy of data reported by farmers a nd of our Landsat classification. Jupar Program Goals At the start of the extension program, Jupar program leaders, along with WWF partners, set goals for forest conservation in participating communities. In Fortaleza, the goal was to maintain 30% of the community s total area in natural forest. The community reserve protects about 20% of the total area. On the remaining 80% of the land, each farmer would have to conserve 12.5% of his or her own plot, to reach the overall goal of 30% forest cover. Of the 30 farmers interviewed, 14 of them, or 46%, report that their property meets this goal, when only original forest cover is considered. According to the image classification, which in cludes forest regrowth as well as original forest cover, 46 of the 50 properties, or 92%, m eet this goal. The image analysis used a broader definition of forest: regrowth areas that farmers usually define as capoeira were included here, and very old agroforestry systems may also be included. Including both the reserve and forested areas on indivi dual lots, 31% of th e community area was forested in 2001, indicating that Fortaleza doe s meet Jupars conservation goal, when areas of regrowth are taken into consideration. Areas of regrowth may not provide the same conservation benefits as the original forest, as regrowth areas are likely to be mo re fragmented and incl ude a different species composition, and may or may not provide suitable wildlife habitat. At the same time, it is important that conservation programs like Jupar set goals that are attainable, in order to maintain the enthusiasm and participation of local residents. Adopting a broader definition of forest conservation may make goals more attainable, especially in an already deforested area like Fortaleza. Lots that were settled in the 1970s included little forest

PAGE 97

86 cover in 1986, so regeneration of forested areas is really the best th at conservationists can hope for in this case. Regrowth areas and very old agroforestry systems can provide important environmental services, such as th e protection of water so urces, and can act as corridors between areas of rema ining Atlantic Forest. The tendency of participants to allow forest regrowth to a greater extent th an non-participants indi cates that the Jupar program has succeeded in instilling this conservation ethic in Fortaleza. Directions for Further Study The accuracy of this assessment could be improved by returning to the field and collecting additional GPS points in Fortaleza, es pecially in areas of forest regrowth. A random sample of these areas could be visited to determine whether they are in fact areas of forest regrowth or very old agroforestry, and the age of the regrowth or agroforestry. Additional fieldwork could also help to more accurately locate prope rties on the satellite image. Walking the perimeter of a few re presentative properties with a GPS might be one way to accomplish this. The community forest reserve also merits further research. While forest cover is increasing outside of the reserve, the remote sensing analysis indicates some degradation of the reserve itself. Who is using this area? Do users have the permission of the larger community to use this community resource? Community reserves are one effective way to set aside some of the larger fragments of remaining Atlantic Forest. The agrarian reform movement is constantly estab lishing new communities throughout Southern Bahia, and many include a community forest reserve. An in-depth study of the management of these reserves in well-estab lished communities such as Fortaleza might allow planners to more appropriately select areas for community reserves and create management plans for the long term-conservation of these reserves.

PAGE 98

87 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS As with any large project, the Jupar Agroecology Project had its strengths and weaknesses. The project did have a notabl e impact on the use of organic agricultural practices in the three communities studied, as shown in Chapters 2 and 3. The project also had many qualitative benefits that we re not necessarily cap tured here, including improving community organizations, devel oping leaders, strengthening womens participation in agriculture and commun ity organizations, and improving farmers attitudes toward conservation. Almost all of the farmers interviewed, participants and non-participants alike, spoke very highly of the program and its benefits to the community. Specific comments from pa rticipants included the following: I learned to preserve nature, to work in an agroecological system, and to stop killing insects that could be bene ficial. Aloisio, Lagoa Santa I learned to speak in an assembly and not be timid. I gained knowledge of both agriculture and commercializat ion. -Andre, Lagoa Santa I learned to dialogue better with people. If you ha ve a problem, you can discuss it with others and know that its not so serious. -Maria, Fortaleza Interview data indicated that the project ma y not have consistently met its goals for forest conservation in Fortaleza and Lagoa Sant a. In Cascata, the forest conservation goal was met through the establishment of a large community reserve. The remote sensing analysis in Chapter 4 helps present a clearer picture of th e dynamics of land use change in Fortaleza. Although the overall amount of forest cover remained almost

PAGE 99

88 constant between 1986 and 2001, forest cover increased on older family lots and decreased within the forest re serve area as some parts of th e reserve were converted to family lots after properties were reassigned by INCRA. All of the project participants were situated on older lots and had little natural forest left to conserve when the project began in 1995, but we do see a trend in forest regrowth in Fortaleza, and it appears that project participants are allowing more fo rest regrowth on their properties than nonparticipants. This research could be strengthened by de signing similar remote sensing analyses for Lagoa Santa and Cascata, and for the regional landscape. Each community has a distinct land use history, and each could offe r an independent and interesting land use and land cover change study. The land use data presented here also highlight the importance of collecting baseline data when a project like this begins, in order to set feasible conservation goals and more accurately monitor progress toward these goals. Communities are very large, and some kinds of agroforestry systems and fo rests in this region may look alike at first glance. It would be easy for an extensionist attending a community meeting or visiting a limited number of families to misestimate the distribution of land uses if no rigorous data collection were carried out. Jupars original conservation goals, which seem to have been set somewhat arbitrarily, may not have been very feasible if little forest was left to conserve in the target communities. Goals might have included the establishment of forest reserves by allowing forest regrowth, rather than, or in addition to, conserving existing forests. The participatory mappi ng activity indicated that many farmers had never given much thought to the overall landscape of their farms and the spatial

PAGE 100

89 arrangement of land uses. A similar activity at the outse t of a conservation program would allow farmers to conceptualize what is present and plan changes that might be possible for future years. The use of remo te sensing is also an excellent tool for conservation planning, when this technology is av ailable. Collecting baseline data could allow Jupar and other conservation organiza tions to focus their efforts on communities where conservation goals are most likely to be met. Communities invo lved in this project were selected mainly based on their proximity to the Una Reserve, or in some cases, their longstanding relationship with Jupar and involvement in past Jupar projects. Jupar also hoped to increase family inco mes. Participating families do tend to have higher agricultural incomes than non-part icipating ones, but this could be because wealthier families, or families depending more heavily on agriculture for their income, tended to participate in the project more often than other families. When fieldwork was completed in 2005, farmers in Cascata were marketing their cacao collectively through the Coopasb cooperative and receiving a highe r price because the cacao was organic. Cargill, an international expor ter of various agricultural pro ducts, was the main buyer of Coopasbs organic cacao. In 2006, Cargill deci ded to stop offering a premium price for organic certified cacao, and this year Cascata farmers sold their organic cacao to local buyers for the same price as non-certified cacao. Farmers in Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa did not report an increase in income as a result of participation in th e cooperative. Most did not re gularly sell products through the cooperative. Coopasb has been most active in the marketing of organic cacao, which is advantageous for cacao communities like Cascata, but less advantageous for communities with mixed production, like Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa. Perhaps in the future they will

PAGE 101

90 be able to increase the mark eting opportunities for organic products other than cacao, but due to a combination of organizational and mark et factors, efforts to date have not been successful. Jupars current work in Cascata and other communities on cacao estates has been highly successful both in terms of conser vation and production of organic cacao. By providing environmental educat ion and other support servic es to encampments, Jupar gains access to these communities early and begins educating future farmers before any land use decisions are made. In addition, by participating actively in the land reform process, Jupar contributes to decisions about where new communities are placed and is able to request areas of c onservation value and preserve some of these areas as community reserves. Because these commun ities are newer to the project, long-term evaluation of conservation outcomes will be ne cessary in the future. As we saw in Fortaleza, community forest reserves can al so experience degradat ion over the long term if a specific management and mon itoring plan is not in place. Jupar faced a number of challenges and lim itations, budgetary and otherwise, that sometimes limited their impact in communities. Some farmers complained that extension support was sporadic or inconsistent, whic h was often due to budgetary limitations. WWF funds were provided for only a limited time span, and when this funding came to an end, Jupar struggled even more to fulfill commitments in a large number of communities with limited staff and resources. They have worked in more than 30 communities since the project began and now receive numerous requests from interested communities, especially encampment communitie s. In some cases, they have been successful in training community members as extensionists and having members of new

PAGE 102

91 settlements volunteer to offer support to enca mpments. Although it is difficult to turn away interested farmers, it might be beneficial to limit the number of communities so that a smaller number of communities could be served more effectively. Jupar is not the only conservation and development organization in Southern Bahia. Other local resources include several other conser vation and land reform NGOs, a university, a government-run cacao research cen ter (CEPLAC), and several corporations including Cargill, a large exporter of cacao a nd other products. Historically, Jupars efforts to collaborate with ot her organizations have been le ss than successful, including one collaboration effort that resulted in half of the participants in Fortaleza dropping out of the project after a conflict between Jupar and a nother NGO. Collaborations with other organizations could strengthen Jupars efforts in the regions, if these organizations are selected carefully and expect ations are clearly defined. The results of this project support many of the statements made by other authors concerning integrated conservation and de velopment projects (ICDPs). ICDPs do involve local residents and prom ote a conservation ethic that outright purchase of land or establishment of off-limits protected areas might not (Schwartzman et al. 2000). At the same time, ICDPs often lack functional linka ges between specific development activities and desired conservation outcomes (Browder 2002) The use of organi c agroforestry and resulting increased incomes do not, on their own, prevent deforestation (Alger 1998). Forest conservation requires a related but separate proce ss of landscape-level planning, especially in fragmented ecosystems like the Atlantic Forest, and in smallholder communities where landholdings are small. In addition, Jupar supports a third and equally challenging process, that of agrari an land reform. Through adequate support of

PAGE 103

92 all three of these processes, agrarian reform, organic ag riculture implementation, and landscape conservation planning, Jupar has great potential to influence the development of communities that are both fi nancially stable and environmentally aware. This will require careful planning and continuous monitoring, appropriate selection of communities, and use of a variety of local resources.

PAGE 104

93 LIST OF REFERENCES Adesina, A. A., and J. Chianu. 2002. Determinan ts of farmers' adoption and adaptation of alley farming technology in Nigeria. Agroforestry Systems 55 :99-112. Aguiar, A. P., A. G. Chiarello, S. L. Mende s, and E. Neri de Matos. 2003. The Central and Serra do Mar Corridors in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest Pages 118-132 in I. de Gusmo Cmara, editor. The Atlantic Fo rest of South America. Biodiversity status, threats, and outlook. Island Press, Washington, DC. Albers, H., and E. Grinspoon. 1997. A comp arison of the enforcement of access restrictions between Xishuangbanna Na ture Reserve (China) and Khao Yai National Park (Thailand). Environmental Conservation 24 :351-362. Alger, K. 1998. The Reproduction of the Coco a Industry and Biodive rsity Southern in Bahia, Brazil. First International Workshop on Sustainable Cocoa Growing. Smithsonian Institute, Panama. Available from http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Conservation AndScience/MigratoryBirds/Research/Cacao (Accessed Oct. 2004). Alger, K., and M. Caldas. 1994. The declining cocoa economy and the Atlantic Forest of Southern Bahia, Brazil: Conservation attitudes of cocoa planters. The Environmentalist 14 :107-119. Alves, M. C. 1990. The role of cacao plantatio ns in the conservation of the Atlantic Forest of Southern Bahia, Brazil. Mast ers Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. Alvim, R., and P. K. Nair. 1986. Conminati on of cacao with other plantation crops: an agroforestry system in Southeast Ba hia, Brazil. Agroforestry Systems 4 :2-15. Araujo, M. H. S. 1997. Diagnstico de uso y aptido agrcola da s terras de regio de Una (BA) utilizando tcnicas de geoprocessamento. Master s thesis, Facultade de Engenharia Agrcola. Universidade Esta dual de Campinas, Campinas, So Paulo, Brazil. Bannister, M. E., and P. K. Nair. 2003. Agrofo restry adoption in Ha iti: The importance of household and farm characteris tics. Agroforestry Systems 57 :149-157. Blom, A. 1998. A critical analysis of three approaches to tropical forest conservation based on experiences in the Sa ngha region. Yale F&ES Bulletin 102 :208-215.

PAGE 105

94 Boahene, K., T. A. B. Snijders, and H. Folmer. 1999. An integrated socioeconomic analysis of innovation adopti on: The case of hybrid ca cao in Ghana. Journal of Policy Modeling 21 :167-184. Brandon, K., K. H. Redford, and S. E. Sande rson 1998. Parks in peril: People parks and protected areas. Island Press, Washington, DC. Brechin, S. R., P. R. Wilshusen, C. L. Fortwangler, and P. C. West. 2002. Beyond the square wheel: Toward a more comprehe nsive understandi ng of biodiversity conservation as social and political pr ocess. Society and Natural Resources 15 :4164. Browder, J. O. 2002. Conservation and develo pment projects in the Brazilian Amazon: Lessons from the community initiative program in Rondonia. Environmental Management 29 :750-762. Browder, J. O., and M. A. Pedlowski. 2000. Agroforestry performance on small farms in Amazonia: Findings from the Rondonia agro forestry pilot project. Agroforestry Systems 49 :63-83. Browder, J. O., R. H. Wynne, and M. A. Pedlowski. 2005. Agroforestry diffusion and secondary forest regeneration in the Brazi lian Amazon: further findings from the Rondonia Agroforestry Pilot Project (1992-2002). Agroforestry Systems 65 :99111. Buschbacher, R. in prep. O Movimento Agroeco logico do Sul da Bahia: Um modelo de agricultura familiar na reforma agrria vi sando a conservao da Mata Atlntica. Srie Tcnico do World Wildlife Fund (WWF ). Esboo para circulao interna. Conservation International. 2006. Corredor Centra l da Mata Atlntica. Available from http://www.conservation.org.br/onde /mata_atlantica/index.php?id=43. (Accessed May 2006). Cooms, O. T., and G. J. Burt. 1997. Indigenous market-oriented agroforestry: dissecting local diversity in western Amazonia. Agroforestry Systems 37 :1997. Cullen, L., K. Alger, and D. M. Ramb aldi. 2005. Land reform and biodiversity conservation in Brazil in the 1990s: Conf lict and the articulation of mutual interests. Conservation Biology 19 :747-755. Deitz, J. M., S. N. F. Sousa, and J. R. O. Silva. 1994. Population dynamics of goldenheaded lion tamarins Leontopithecus chry somelas in Una Reserve, Brazil. Dodo Journal of the JerseyWildlife Preservation Trust 32 :115-122. Domingos. 2002. Land Reform in Brazil. La nd Action Research Network, Country Overview. Available from http://www.landaction.org/galler y/AgReformBrazil%201-3-PDF.pdf. (Accessed April 2006).

PAGE 106

95 Greenberg, R. 1998. Biodiversity in the cacao agroecosystem: Shade management and landscape considerations. First International Workshop on Sustainable Cocoa Growing. Smithsonian Institution, Panama. Available from http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Conservation AndScience/MigratoryBirds/Research/Cacao (Accessed Oct. 2004). Greenberg, R., P. Bichier, and A. C. A ngon. 2000. The conservation value for birds of cacao plantations with diverse plante d shade in Tabasco, Mexico. Animal Conservation 3 :105-112. Guanes Rego, L. F., and B. Koch. 2003. Automa tic classification of land cover with high resolution data of the Rio de Ja neiro City, Brazil. Pages 172-176.in 2nd GRSS/ISPRS Workshop on Data Fusion a nd Remote Sensing over Urban Areas. Hirota, M. M. 2003. Monitoring the Brazilian Atla ntic Forest cover. Pages60-65 in I. de Gusmo Cmara, editor. The Atlantic Fo rest of South Amrica. Biodiversity status, threats, and outlook. Island Press, Washington, DC. Instituto Nacional de Colonizao e Refo rma Agraria (INCRA). 2006. Available at www.incra.gov.br (Accessed May 2006). Johns, N. D. 1999. Conservation in Brazil's choc olate forest: The unlik ely persistence of the traditional cocoa agroecosyst em. Environmental Management 23 :31-47. Johnson, A., P. Igag, R. Bino, and P. Huka hu. 2001. Community-based conservation area management in Papua New Guinea: Adap ting to changing policy and practice. Pages 351-367 in E. Wollenberg, editor. Bi ological diversity: balancing interests through adaptive collaborative management. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Kamugisha, J. R., Z. A. Ogutu, and M. Stahl 1997. Parks and pe ople: Conservation & livelihoods at the crossroads English Press, Nairobi. Kramer, R. A., C. P. van Schaik, and J. J ohnson 1997. The last stand: Protected areas and the defense of tropical biodiversit y. Oxford University, New York. Kremen, C., A. M. Merenlender, and D. D. Murphy. 1994. Ecological monitoring A vital need for integrated conservation a nd development programs in the tropics. Conservation Biology 8 :388-397. Laurance, S. G. W. 2004. Landscape connectiv ity and biological co rridors. Pages 50-63 in A. N. Izac, editor. Agroforestry a nd biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Island Pre ss, Washington, DC. Lemos Costa, K. 2000. Dinmica da cobertura fl orestal na regio de Una, Bahia, Mata Atlntica, a partir da an lise de imagens de satlite (1985-1998). Masters thesis. Departamento de Ingenharia Florestal. Universidade de Braslia, Braslia, BR.

PAGE 107

96 McCracken, S. D., B. Boucek, and E. F. Mo ran. 2002. Deforestation trajectories in a frontier region of the Brazilian Amazon in K. A. Crews-Meyer, editor. Linking people, place, and policy, a GIS science approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA. Mercer, D. E. 2004. Adoption of agroforest ry innovations in th e tropics: A review. Agroforestry Systems 61 :311-328. Mittermeier, R. A., N. Myers, and C. G. Mittermeier 1999. Hotspots: Earth's Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. Cemex. Movimento Sem Terra (MST). 2006. Available from: www.mst.org.br. (Accessed May 2006). Murniati, D., P. Garrity, and A. N. Ginti ngs. 2001. The contribution of agroforestry systems to reducing farmers' dependence on the resources of adjacent national parks: a case study from Sumatra, Indonesia. Agroforestry Systems 52 :171-184. Neupane, R. P., K. R. Sharma, and G. B. Thapa. 2002. Adoption of agroforestry in the hills of Nepal: a logistic regression analysis. Agricultural Systems 72 :177-196. Olson, J. D. 1998. A digital model of pattern and productivity in an agroforestry landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 42 :169-189. Pardini, R. 2004. Effects of forest fragmenta tion on small mammals in an Atlantic Forest landscape. Biodiversity and Conservation 13 :2567-2586. Pattanayak, S. K., D. E. Mercer, E. S ills, and J. C. Yang. 2003. Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agroforestry Systems 57 :137-150. Perz, S. G. 2004. Are agricultural produc tion and forest conservation compatible? Agricultural diversity, agricultural income s and primary forest cover among small farm colonists in the Amazon. World Development 32 :957-977. Peters, J. 1998. Transforming the integrat ed conservation and development project (ICDP) approach: Observations from the Ranomafana National Park Project, Madagascar. Journal of Agricult ural and Environmental Ethics. 11 :17-47. Reitsma, R., J. D. Parrish, and W. McLarney. 2001. The role of cacao plantations in maintaining forest avian diversity in southeastern Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems 53 :185-193. Rice, R. A., and R. Greenberg. 2000. Cacao cul tivation and the conservation of biological diversity. Ambio 29 :167-173.

PAGE 108

97 Rindfuss, R. R., B. Entwisle, S. J. Walsh, P. Prasartkul, Y. Sawangdee, T. W. Crawford, and J. Reade. 2002. Continuous and discre te: where they have met in Nang Rong, Thailand. Pages 8-37 in K. A. Crews-Meye r, editor. Linking people, place, and policy, a GIS science approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA. Ruf, F., and G. Schroth. 2004. Chocolate forests and monocultures: A hi storical review of cocoa growing and its conf licting role in tropical de forestation and forest conservation. Pages 107-134 in A. N. Izac, editor. Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscap es. Island Press, Washington, DC. Saatchi, S., D. Agosti, K. Alger, J. Delabie, and J. Musinsky. 2001. Examining fragmentation and loss of primary forest in the southern Bahian Atlantic forest of Brazil with radar imagery. Conservation Biology 15 :867-875. Sader, S., R. B. Waide, W. T. Lawrence, a nd A. Joyce. 1989. Tropical forest biomass and successional age class relationships to a ve getation index derived from Landsat TM data. Remote Sensing of the Environment 28 :143-156. Scherr, S. J. 1995. Economic factors in fa rmer adoption of agroforestry: patterns observed in Western Ke nya. World Development 23 :787-804. Scherr, S. J. 2000. A downward spiral? Resear ch evidence on the re lationship between poverty and natural resour ce degradation. Food Policy 25 :479-498. Schwartzman, S., A. Moreira, and D. Ne pstad. 2000a. Rethinking tropical forest conservation: Perils in pa rks. Conservation Biology 14 :1351-1357. Schwartzman, S., D. Nepstad, and A. Moreira. 2000b. Arguing tropical forest conservation: People versus parks. Conservation Biology 14 :1370-1374. Simmons, C. S., R. T. Walker, and C. H. Wood. 2002. Tree planting by small producers in the tropics: A comparative study of Br azil and Panama. Agroforestry Systems 56 :89-105. Stedile, J. P., and F. Srgio 1993. A luta pe la terra no Brasil. Editora Pgina Aberta Limitada, So Paulo. Sunderlin, W. D., O. Ndoye, H. Bikie, N. Laporte, B. Mertens, and J. Pokam. 2000. Economic crisis, small-scale agriculture, and forest c over change in southern Cameroon. Environmental Conservation 27 :284-290. Tefilo, and Garcia. 2003. Brazil, land politic s, poverty and rural development in P. Groppo, editor. Land reform, land settlement, and cooperatives. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. Terborgh, J. 1999. Requiem for nature. Isla nd Press/Shearwater Books, Washington, DC.

PAGE 109

98 Thomas, W. W., A. A. M. V. de Carvalho, A. M. A. Amorim, J. Garrison, and A. L. Arbelaez. 1998. Plant endemism in two forests in southern Bahia, Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation 7 :311-322. Trevizan, S. D. P. 1998. Uma relao sociedade-naturaleza: A crise de cacau e o movimento social pela terra no sul da Ba hia nos anos 90. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural da SOBER.. Trevizan, S. D. P. 1999. Reforma agrria e meio ambiente. Revista de cincias agrrias. 32 :65-80. University of Maryland. 2006. The Global Land C over Change Facility. Available from: http://glcfapp.umiacs.umd.edu:8080/esdi/index.jsp. (Accessed May 2006). Vance, C., and J. Geoghegan. 2002. Temporal and spatial modelling of tropical deforestation: a survival analysis linking satellite and household survey data. Agricultural Economics 27 :317-332. Vosti, S. A., J. Witcover, S. Olivei ra, and M. Faminow. 1997. Policy issues in agroforestry: Technology adoption and regiona l integration in the western Brazilian Amazon. Agroforestry Systems 38 :195-222. Walsh, S. J., J. P. Medina, K. A. Crews-Me yer, R. E. Bilsborrow, and W. K. Y. Pan. 2002. Characterizing and modeling patterns of deforestation and agricultural extensification in the Ecuadorian Amaz on Pages 187-214 in K. A. Crews-Meyer, editor. Linking people, place, and policy, a GIS science approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA. Wells, M., S. Guggenheim, A. Kahn, W. Wardojo, and P. Jepson 1999. Investing in biodiversity: A review of Indonesia's in tegrated conservation and development projects. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

PAGE 110

99 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kathleen Painter was born and raised in Maryland. She attended St. Marys College of Maryland and graduated in 2000 w ith a B.A. in biology and Spanish. Her undergraduate studies included one semester abroad at the Universidad San Francisco de Quito in Ecuador. Kathleen served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Paraguay from 2000 2002, where she worked as an agroforestry ex tensionist in a small rural community and developed her interest in inte rnational development work. Pr ior to attending UF she also worked as a Spanish teacher at Golden Ring Middle School in Baltimore.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015301/00001

Material Information

Title: Effectiveness of an Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Extension Program for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Agroforestry in Southern Bahia, Brazil
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0015301:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015301/00001

Material Information

Title: Effectiveness of an Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Extension Program for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Agroforestry in Southern Bahia, Brazil
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0015301:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












EFFECTIVENESS OF A NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION (NGO)
EXTENSION PROGRAM FOR FOREST CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE
AGROFORESTRY IN SOUTHERN BAHIA, BRAZIL
















By

KATHLEEN R. PAINTER


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Kathleen R. Painter















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Robert Buschbacher, for inviting me to

collaborate with him on this research. Dr. Buschbacher began working with Jupara while

working for WWF and has been supporting Jupara's efforts for more than 10 years. He is

well known by both Jupara staff and community members as a respected conservationist

and an old friend. His long-standing commitment to this project contributed greatly to

the success of my research.

I would also like to thank the rest of the Buschbacher family, Margareth, Thomas

and Katharine, for spending part of their family vacation assisting me in the field.

I would like to thank the Jupara staff, Luis Souto, Mera Costa, Barbara de Carvalho

Vasconcelos, Neusa Nevis Sousa and Lucilene Mendes dos Santos, for finding the time

to introduce me to their work, their communities, and the day-to-day realities in southern

Bahia. All of them are exemplary people and work tirelessly toward the betterment of

rural communities.

Most importantly, I would like to thank the many Bahian families who participated

in this research and shared their time, stories, and enthusiasm with me. I would

especially like to thank Francisco Amancio dos Santos (Chico), Francisco dos Santos

(Panca), Andre Jesus da Conceicgo (Catixa), and Maurilho Jose da Silva for welcoming

me to stay at their homes while I carried out this research.

Thanks go also to UF graduate student Kye Epps for sharing her home in Ilheus

and her knowledge of doing research in Bahia.









Back at the University of Florida, I thank Dr. Karen Kainer and Dr. Peter

Hildebrand for serving as my committee members and helping to improve my research

proposal and this thesis. Special thanks go to Karen for making possible my

collaboration with Bob.

Dr. Chris Baraloto deserves a huge thank you for assisting with the statistical

analyses.

I would like to thank Amy Daniels, Lucas Fortini, Dr. Mike Binford and Dr. Jane

Southworth for technical suggestions on the remote sensing component of this research.

Finally, I thank the following UF graduate students for their friendship and support:

Cara Rockwell, Meghan McGinty, Tom Henshaw, Maria DiGiano, Mandy Baily, Julie

Clingerman, Miriam Wyman, Lin Cassidy and Brian Daley.

This research was made possible by funding from the UF School of Natural

Resources and Environment, the UF Tropical Conservation and Development Program,

and St. Mary's College of Maryland.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES .................................................... ....... .. .............. viii

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ......................... ...... ........ ............ ix

A B ST R A C T ................. .......................................................................................... x

CHAPTER

1 IN T R O D U C T IO N ............................................................................. .............. ...

2 EFFECTIVENESS OF AN NGO EXTENSION PROGRAM FOR FOREST
CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE AGROFORESTRY IN TWO
COMMUNITIES IN SOUTHERN BAHIA, BRAZIL ............................................5

Introduction .................. .. ......... ....... ....... ......................... 5
A groforestry A adoption ........................ .... .................... ...................6
Integrated Conservation and Development Projects ............ .................10
R research questions ........................................ .. ...... ....... .... ... ... 12
Study Area ............. ...... ..... ..... .......... ..... .............. .........13
Jupara Project H history ............................................ ... ..... .. ........ .... 15
Selection of Study Sites............................ ................. ............... ............... 18
M e th o d s ............................................................... ................ 2 0
Description of Study Sites ............................ ........... .................. .... 20
F o rtalez a ...............................20..............................
Lagoa Santa ............................................................................. 21
F field M eth o d s ................................................................................ 2 2
D ata A n a ly sis ................................................................................................. 2 4
P participation ............................................................. 24
Use of Agroecological Practices ................................27
Multiple Regressions ...................... ......... .............28
Results ............ .. ............... ............. ...............29
Com prison of com munities ............................................................ 29
Regression Analysis of participation and family attributes on program
im plem entation ............................................................32
F ortaleza ............... .... .. ................................................. ...... 32
L ag o a S an ta ................................................ ................... ... ................3 2


v









U se of A agricultural Practices............................................................ ................33
F ortaleza ......................................33............................
Lagoa Santa ...................... ............ ... ............... 34
L a n d C o v e r .................................................................................................... 3 5
D isc u ssio n ........................................................................................3 7
Agroecological Practices .................................. ....................... ... ..... 37
In c o m e ........................................................................................................... 4 0
L and C over ................................... ............................41
Success of the Jupard Agroecology Project...... ........................................ 42

3 CONSERVATION AND AGRARIAN REFORM IN SOUTHERN BAHIA, THE
C A SE O F C A SC A TA ............................................................46

Introduction ................... ................ ................... 46
Jupari and Land Reform ................. ............. ........................ ...............47
Cascata, a Land Reform Settlem ent .............................................. ......50
Site Description ................. ..... ........ .......... ......... 51
M e th o d s ..............................................................................5 3
Results ............... ................................ ...............53
Participation............................ ............ 53
Adoption of Agroecological Practices.............................................. 57
L an d U se .........................................................5 7
D iscu ssion .................................................................................. 58
Agroforestry and Conservation in Cascata ....................................58
Future D directions for Jupar ...................................................................... ..... 60

4 EFFECTS OF AN NGO EXTENSION PROGRAM ON LAND USE CHANGE
ON SMALL FARM PROPERTIES IN THE ATLANTIC FOREST OF
SO U T H E R N B A H IA ........................................................................................... 62

Introduction ................................................. 62
S tu d y R e g io n ................................................................................................. 6 6
Fortaleza .............................................................................. ... ..... ...............66
The Atlantic Forest of Southern Bahia.................................. ............... 67
Remote sensing studies in the Atlantic Forest ...........................................70
M e th o d s ..............................................................................7 1
Interview s ........................................71
Participatory Mapping and Training Points ................. ................. ....72
Im age Processing ...................................................................................... ... .......72
R e su lts ................ ...........................................................................7 5
Land Use Classifications ................................................................75
Com prison w ith Interview D ata .................. ............................................... 80
D isc u ssio n ................................ ............................................................................. 8 2
Remote Sensing Analysis ................. ...................................82
Com prison w ith Interview D ata .................. ............................................... 84
Jupard Program G oals..................................................... 85
Directions for Further Study ........ .. .......... ......... .... ......86









5 C O N C L U SIO N S ..................... .... .......................... .. .... ........ .... ... .......87

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ............................................................................. .............. 93

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ...................................................................... ..................99
















LIST OF TABLES

Table pge

2-1 Description of target agroecological practices. .....................................................17

2-2 Interview content .................. ................................ ........ .. ............ 24

2-3 Jupara sponsored activities and corresponding participation scores......................26

2-4 Descriptive statistics by groups for two communities. P=Participants, FP =
Former Participants, NP = Non-Participants.........................................................30

2-5 Multiple regression models for Fortaleza ............... .....................................32

2-6 Multiple regression models for Lagoa Santa..........................................................33

3-1 Descriptive statistics by groups for three communities .......................................55
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pge

2-1 Location of study sites. Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa are shown in red. .................19

2-2 Range of participation scores in Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa.............................. 27

2-3 Component plot for principal components analysis. Component one orders
practices from ecologically destructive to ecologically beneficial. .......................28

2-4 Adoption of agroecological practices in Fortaleza............................. .............34

2-5 Adoption of agroecological practices in Lagoa Santa............................................35

2-6 Land cover distribution in Fortaleza, as reported by farmers. ................................35

3-1 Range of participation scores in Fortaleza, Lagoa Santa, and Cascata ..................54

3-2 Adoption of agroecological practices in Cascata. .................................................57

4-1 Location of study site. The blue box indicates the Southern Bahia region with
the original Atlantic Forest shown in yellow and remaining forest in green ..........68

4-2 Location of the Central and Serra do Mar Corridors..............................................69

4-3 Property sketch created by a community member. .............................................73

4-4 Land Use Classification for Fortaleza, 1986. .................... ......................... 76

4-5 Land use classification for Fortaleza, 2001 ..................................................77

4-7 Land use change in Fortaleza on properties owned by non-participants
participants in the Jupara project, and within the community forest reserve..........80

4-8 Distribution of land uses in Fortaleza as measured by classification of 2001
L a n d sat d ata ...................................... .............................................. .. 8 1

4-9 Distribution of land uses in Foratleza as reported by farmers interviewed in
2005 ................. .............. ............................. 81















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

EFFECTIVENESS OF A NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION (NGO)
EXTENSION PROGRAM FOR FOREST CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE
AGROFORESTRY IN SOUTHERN BAHIA, BRAZIL

By

Kathleen R. Painter

August 2006

Chair: Karen Kainer
Major Department: Interdisciplinary Ecology

This study provides an evaluation of the Jupara Agroecology Project, an integrated

conservation and development project (ICDP), as a strategy for sustainable agriculture

and forest conservation in the vicinity of a protected area. The Jupara project was

launched in 1995 in partnership with WWF, and provided extension services to 35

communities. Jupara set the following program goals: implementation of target

agroecological practices, organic certification, increased family incomes, and

maintenance of 30% of the community area in forest and 40% in agroforestry systems.

This study addresses the following research questions: Are families that

participated in the Jupara project meeting these goals? How do family dynamics and size

of landholding influence project implementation? Are project results consistent in

different types of communities?

Three communities were selected for analysis. A total of 65 household interviews

were conducted with participating and non-participating families. GPS points and basic









vegetation data for five land cover types were collected for each household. A

participation score was assessed for each family and multiple regressions were used to

analyze the effect of participation and other socioeconomic variables on program

outcomes such as use of agroecological practices, farm income, and forest and

agroforestry cover. For one community, analysis of Landsat imagery was used to verify

land cover distributions and to assess change in land cover over time.

Results of interview data show that participation in the Jupara program positively

influences the implementation of agroecological practices and farm income, but does not

influence land cover distribution or the maintenance of forest reserves by individuals.

Successfully implemented agroecological practices included the use of organic

fertilizers and composting, contour erosion barriers, diversification of agroforestry

systems, and the elimination of burning and agrochemicals.

For two of three communities, much of the forest cover was converted to

agroforestry long before the Jupara project began. One community reported an average

of 8% forest cover, and the second reported 35%, including a community reserve. Many

farmers maintain no forest reserve. The third community maintains 40% of its total area

as a community-managed reserve.

Analysis of Landsat data showed that the overall distribution of forest, agroforestry,

and open areas remained almost constant between 1986 and 2001; however, forested

areas increased on participants' lots, indicating that participants may be more likely to

allow forest regrowth to create forest reserves.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

All around the world, conservationists have observed that long-term and large-scale

conservation of endangered ecosystems will require the participation of their residents

(Murniati et al. 2001; Schwartzman et al. 2000a; Schwartzman et al. 2000b).

Conservation programs have used various strategies to enlist local participation in

conservation efforts, including strategies for sustainable agriculture, extraction of non-

timber forest products, ecotourism, and payments for environmental services. Projects

which include both a conservation component and an economic development component

have come to be known as "Integrated Conservation and Development Projects" or

ICDPs.

ICDPs have been criticized for being expensive to implement and for focusing on

development and producing too few tangible conservation results (Brandon et al. 1998;

Brechin et al. 2002). A close examination of literature on such projects, however, reveals

that few ICPDs have been rigorously evaluated. To understand the most effective ways

to involve local people in conservation efforts, it is important to understand the strengths

and weaknesses of past projects, as well as the results these projects have produced or

failed to produce.

This thesis developed out of the long-term collaboration between Dr. Robert

Buschbacher and a small conservation NGO in Ilheus, Brazil, Jupara, Assessoriapara o

Desenvolvimento Agroecologico de Comunidades Rurais (Organization for

Agroecological Development in Rural Communities), and the practical need for an









evaluation of some of Jupara's ongoing projects. Jupara works primarily with land

reform communities, and also some traditional rural communities, throughout the

Atlantic Forest of Southern Bahia. Land reform communities are communities

established relatively recently, within the last 30 years, through a government land reform

program which donates farmland to landless workers. Traditional communities also exist

in this region. In these cases, land has been passed down from father to sons for many

generations.

In 1995, Jupara began collaborating with WWF to promote diversified

agroforestry, organic agriculture, and forest conservation in communities in the buffer

zone of the Una Biological Reserve. Concrete outcome goals were set at the start of the

project, including the implementation of organic agricultural practices and the

maintenance of 30% of each community's area in natural forest reserves and 40% in

agroforestry systems. As with many conservation projects, funding constraints

prevented any rigorous evaluation or monitoring of the extent to which these outcome

goals were met (Buschbacher in prep.).

The Jupara project has been ongoing for more than 10 years and offers a suitable

example for an in-depth analysis of the outcomes of a conservation and development

project in a critical conservation area, the Atlantic Forest. This research examines the

success of the project at the level of individual families in several different communities.

Household interviews were carried out in three communities, and a remote-sensing

analysis of land cover change at the property level was conducted in one of the three

communities.









This thesis is presented in three parts. Chapter 2 was written as an independent

document, suitable for eventual publication. It focuses on the contribution of this

research toward a better understanding of the function of integrated conservation and

development projects in the buffer zones of protected areas, as well as innovation

adoption by smallholders. Within this framework, chapter two describes the Jupara

project in greater depth, including its outcome goals, and presents interview data

collected in two of the three study communities, Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa. Fortaleza is

a 30-year-old land reform settlement and Lagoa Santa is a traditional agricultural

community that has been in place for many generations. Farmers in these communities

produce a variety of products in mixed agroforestry systems, including rubber, cacao,

cloves, palm fibers, and fruit. Both participating and non-participating families were

interviewed about their participation in the project, their use of the project's target

agroecological practices, their land use patterns, including implementation of

agroforestry and conservation of native forests, and a number of socioeconomic variables

which might affect their ability to meet the project goals.

Chapter 3 is intended to complement Chapter 2 and to give readers an idea of

Jupara'a future directions. Data was collected in a third community, Cascata, using the

same methods presented in Chapter 2. Cascata's case is presented separately because this

community is very different and not easily compared to the other two. Cascata is a new

land reform community, about 8 years old, and entered the Jupara project more recently.

The community is situated on a former cacao plantation, and rather than each family

settling on an individual parcel of land, families live in a central area, with production

areas located around the perimeter of the community. Farmers produce cacao almost









exclusively. Each family is assigned a small parcel of cacao to harvest, but the

processing and sale of cacao takes place collectively. This chapter focuses on Jupara's

participation in the agrarian land reform movement. Recently, Jupara has focused their

efforts on such newer land reform communities, often on cacao estates, and work in these

communities offers opportunities and challenges which are distinct from those found in

older communities.

Chapter 4 is also intended as an independent article suitable for publication. This

chapter presents an analysis of land use change in Fortaleza using Landsat imagery from

1986, before the implementation of the Jupara project, and 2001, the most recent image

available. GPS points collected in the field were used to identify areas of forest,

agroforestry and forest regrowth, and cleared areas such as annual crops or pasture.

Maps provided by INCRA, the federal agency responsible for land reform, were used to

identify individual properties within the community. Land use change on participants'

properties is compared with non-participants' and former participants' properties, and the

community forest reserve area is also assessed. Land use observed on the imagery is

compared to land use data collected through interviews.

Chapter 5 presents a brief conclusion synthesizing the results and conclusions of

the three previous chapters.














CHAPTER 2
EFFECTIVENESS OF AN NGO EXTENSION PROGRAM FOR FOREST
CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE AGROFORESTRY IN TWO
COMMUNITIES IN SOUTHERN BAHIA, BRAZIL

Introduction

In many developing countries, agriculture is the principal livelihood of the rural

poor, accounts for a large percentage of land use, and is probably the single most

powerful influence on environmental quality (Scherr 2000). The interrelated themes

of agricultural growth, environmental quality, and rural poverty alleviation have been

called the "critical triangle" of development objectives (Vosti et al. 1997). As rural

populations grow, pressure on the natural resource base increases, leading to both

environmental degradation and declining food security and human health. This is

especially true where people's access to land is limited to poor quality or

environmentally fragile lands (Scherr 2000).

The "critical triangle" becomes even more important in the regions surrounding

protected areas in the tropics. Parks and reserves can preserve only a very small

percentage of fragile or endangered ecosystems, in the late 1990s, reserves

encompassed around 5% of land worldwide, according to one estimate (Terborgh

1999). As Schwartzman et al. (2000b) point out, this small and often fragmented

percentage is unlikely to conserve much biodiversity in the long term, and, as they

state, "the rest of the forest is already inhabited." Thus efforts to protect more

biodiversity than that contained in parks will depend on local people and their ability

to prosper in and around protected areas on a sustainable basis.









Working within this political and economic reality, projects have emerged to

work with communities in the buffer zones of protected areas to improve natural

resource management practices and intensify production systems in a way that

increases incomes but directs use away from the core protected zone (Brechin et al.

2002; Murniati et al. 2001). These projects are known as "Integrated Conservation

and Development Projects," or ICDPs.

The conservation component of an ICDP might include protecting forests or

wildlife within a community, or avoiding the use of a nearby national park for

hunting or extraction of resources. The development component usually includes a

production strategy to help improve the livelihoods of the participants in an

environmentally benign way. Development projects often include ecotourism or

agroforestry.

This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of an ICDP for forest

conservation and sustainable agroforestry, the Jupara Agroecology Project in

Southern Bahia, Brazil. The study evaluates the adoption of agroforestry practices by

families in two communities as well as the patterns of forest conservation or

deforestation both on individual family lots and community-owned property. This

research helps to better explain the effects of the intervention of an ICDP on the

adoption of agroforestry practices by individual families, as well as family and

community commitment to forest conservation.

Agroforestry Adoption

Literature on agroforestry adoption evaluates farmers' abilities to implement

agroforestry systems and other conservation agricultural practices. Adoption studies

sometimes evaluate the effects of a specific program or intervention (Bannister &









Nair 2003; Browder & Pedlowski 2000; Browder et al. 2005; Neupane et al. 2002).

Many studies either assume that all farmers have been exposed to some specific new

practice and correlate adoption of new practices with socioeconomic variables, or

interview only adopters of a particular practice (Bannister & Nair 2003; Cooms &

Burt 1997).

A review of agroforestry adoption papers, published between 1995 and 2001,

by Pattanayak et al. (2003) reports that participation in extension programs was

considered as an explanatory variable in only 10 of the 32 studies reviewed, but

positively influenced adoption in 9 of these 10 cases. Adesina and Chianu (2002) in

Nigeria, and Boahene et al. (1999) in Ghana both demonstrated that contact with an

extension agent had a significant positive effect on farmers' adoption decisions. In

another adoption study carried out in Nepal, Neupane et al. (2002) found that

membership in an NGO positively influenced agroforestry adoption by males but

negatively influenced adoption by females.

A Brazilian example of a project-based agroforestry study analyzes the

Rond6nia Agroforestry Pilot Project (Browder & Pedlowski 2000, Browder et al.

2005). The 2000 study compared successful agroforestry plots established through the

project with unsuccessful ones and identified some of the causes of plot failure,

including biophysical variables such as inappropriate plot location, and household-

level variables such as lack of labor or family illness. The 2005 follow-up study

compared successful participants with non-participants, and found that non-

participating neighbors of successful participants were also likely to adopt

agroforestry.









Most studies on adoption of agroforestry practices by smallholders in the

tropics have focused not on a specific project intervention but on the relationships

between other socioeconomic variables and a family's likelihood to adopt new

practices. Variables that generally have a positive influence on a farmer's ability to

adopt agroforestry practices include age of household head (Bannister & Nair 2003),

education (Boahene et al. 1999; Neupane et al. 2002), size of landholding (Adesina &

Chianu 2002; Cooms & Burt 1997; Scherr 1995), availability of labor (Adesina &

Chianu 2002; Cooms & Burt 1997; Scherr 1995), male gender of farmers (Adesina &

Chianu 2002; Cooms & Burt 1997; Scherr 1995), membership in community

organizations (Browder & Pedlowski 2000; Neupane et al. 2002), socioeconomic

level (Scherr 1995), agriculture as the primary source of income (Simmons et al.

2002), and secure land tenure (Adesina & Chianu 2002; Bannister & Nair 2003;

Simmons et al. 2002).

Many of these studies take a general survey of a large number of households

and compare groups of households, often adopters and non-adopters (Bannister &

Nair 2003), or project participants with non-participants (Browder et al. 2005), or

both (Browder & Pedlowski 2000; Neupane et al. 2002). This study offers a more in-

depth assessment of a smaller number of households. Rather than comparing groups,

we developed indices, based on detailed interviews, to measure the extent of

participation and adoption by both participating and non-participating families. In

addition, the effects of several other socioeconomic variables are considered, drawn

from this literature on the adoption of agroforestry practices.









Several authors have identified a need for further research on agroforestry

adoption in Latin America (Mercer 2004; Pattanayak et al. 2003). Despite the

prevalence of agroforestry in Southern Bahia, few agroforestry adoption studies have

been published on this region. Several studies simply describe the biophysical

characteristics of common agroforestry systems in the region (Alvim & Nair 1986;

Rice & Greenberg 2000). A few studies focus on the social aspects of agroforestry

systems and adoption decisions. Alger and Caldas (1994) surveyed Bahian cacao

farmers on their land use practices and attitudes toward conservation, and found that

the poorest farmers on the smallest lots or with the poorest soils were more likely

than farmers on better quality lands to continue to replace forests with subsistence

crops rather than agroforestry, and are more likely to use bananas or fruit trees to

provide shade for cacao than to use the traditional cabruca system, which maintains

native trees for shade cover. Johns (1999) interviewed cacao producers on medium-

sized farms on their attitudes toward the importance of shade cover, and found that

farmers resisted removing shade trees, even when encouraged to do so by a

government extension program. Trevizan (1999) interviewed cacao farmers in newly

settled and older communities with respect to "environmental risks," including

deforestation and destructive agricultural practices, and concluded that new

settlements do not present significantly more environmental risks than older ones in

terms of agricultural practices and deforestation.

In general, agroforestry adoption studies report farmers' adoption of one or

several specific practices. While the practices themselves may be environmentally

beneficial in terms of soil conservation, pest control, or reduction of agrochemical use









within the agricultural system, these studies do not relate the use of sustainable

practices within an agricultural system to a broader level of conservation across a

farmer's property or across a community-wide landscape. This study takes the idea

of agroforestry adoption one step further, by asking whether or not farmers who adopt

agroforestry practices are likely to also conserve forests.

Integrated Conservation and Development Projects

Published reviews of ICDPs worldwide have yielded mixed results, and in

many cases, criticism of the ICDP concept as a way to manage protected areas. Many

have argued that conservation programs should not "become diluted with social goals

like poverty reduction and social justice (Brechin et al. 2002)" and should simply

focus on nature protection and leave the work of social development to other

organizations (Brandon et al. 1998; Kramer et al. 1997). "What we know," writes

(Brandon et al. 1998), "is that alleviating poverty will not necessarily lead to

improvements in biodiversity conservation." Terborgh (1999) asserts that a

successful ICDP will actually increase pressure on a protected area, by attracting

newcomers to its perimeter.

Case studies support many of these claims. Kamugisha et al. (1997) published

a collection of case histories of various programs surrounding four national parks in

Kenya and Uganda and didn't find a single conservation and development program

that they felt supported local livelihoods successfully enough to slow encroachment

into parklands for grazing, water sources, and farmland. In a similar review of 20

ICDPs in Indonesia, Wells et al. (1999) stated that while monitoring and performance

data are incomplete, very few Indonesian ICDPs can realistically claim to have

enhanced biodiversity, and the most promising projects are unlikely to be financially









feasible over the long term. The authors suggest "a strategic reorientation" of

international biodiversity conservation funding. Similar assertions are made by

Peters (1998) with reference to a project in Madagascar and Blom (1998), citing

efforts in the Central African Republic.

Other authors are more optimistic. Mumiati et al. (2001) demonstrated that

families maintaining highly diversified agroforestry systems in the buffer zone of

Kerinci National Park in Indonesia were less dependent on park resources than

families with less diversified farms. Albers and Grinspoon (1997) offer a comparison

of two national parks in China, one using a policing and punishing strategy, and the

other using an ICDP involving agroforestry systems of rubber, tea, and the resin

producing tree Amomum villosum along the park's perimeter. The ICDP controlled

park degradation more effectively than the policing strategy. Browder (2002) applied

the ICDP concept to the Rondonia Agroforestry Pilot Project in the Brazilian

Amazon, and reported that in 50% of communities, the projects delivered tangible

economic benefits. Preliminary environmental data show that regions adopting the

agroforestry plots promoted by this ICDP had a lower deforestation rate than

neighboring regions from 1995-1998.

Both supporters and critics of Integrated Conservation and Development

Projects identify a need for improved evaluation and monitoring of projects (Brechin

et al. 2002; Browder 2002; Johnson et al. 2001; Kamugisha et al. 1997; Kremen et al.

1994; Wells et al. 1999). Many projects simply have not been in practice long

enough to determine their long term effects. If ICDPs are in fact an ineffective means

of managing protected areas, then the next important step is to ask why. Is the IDCP









approach a failure, or have we yet to develop adequate programs to pursue

conservation and development goals equally well (Brechin et al. 2002)?

This research is unique in that it provides an in-depth evaluation of an ICDP by

considering both the effects of the project intervention and of other causal variables

drawn from agroforestry adoption literature. The analysis is carried out at the level of

individual families in two communities and includes families who participated in the

ICDP and families who did not. The Jupard project has been ongoing for more than

10 years in communities throughout Southern Bahia, and offers a suitable example

for measuring the long-term outcomes for both conservation and development in a

variety of types of communities.

Research questions

This project provides a comprehensive evaluation of the outcomes of one

ICDP, the Jupard Agroecology Project, carried out in the region of the Una Biological

Reserve in Southern Bahia, Brazil. Jupari, a Brazilian NGO, launched an extension

program in 1995, in partnership with WWF, to promote diversified agroforestry,

organic production, and forest conservation among agricultural communities in Una's

buffer zone. The Jupard-WWF project set some very specific conservation goals for

the communities in which it worked. Each community was expected to maintain 30%

of its total area in forest cover (20% forest cover is required by Brazilian law), and

40% in agroforestry systems. The remaining 30% could be used for non-agroforestry

crops, livestock, or other uses. Other goals included the appropriate use of

agroecological practices, diversity of agroforestry systems, organic certification, and

increased family income (Buschbacher in prep.).









Participatory mapping and interviews with producers in two Jupara

communities were carried out in June August 2005 to address the following

research questions:

* Are families that participated in the Jupara Agroecology Project meeting project
goals for forest conservation and use of agroecologial practices?
* Are results consistent in different types of communities, including land
reform communities and traditional communities?
* How do family dynamics and size of landholding influence project
implementation?

Study Area

The Atlantic Forest, which once covered much of the eastern coast of Brazil as

well as parts of Argentina and Paraguay, is one of the world's most diverse

ecosystems, and also one of the most endangered. Due to intensive human

occupation, only about 7% of the forest remains intact, according to a recent mapping

project (Hirota 2003). The region is home to 108 million people, or about 60% of

Brazil's population (Hirota 2003). The Atlantic Forest Biome is on the Global 200

list of globally outstanding ecoregions, and is considered a Biodiversity Hot Spot.

The region supports over 1600 species of terrestrial vertebrates and 20,000 species of

vascular plants, and including more than 6000 endemic plant species and more than

500 endemic animal species (Mittermeier et al. 1999). Within southern Bahia,

researchers have documented extremely high tree diversity (Thomas et al. 1998), and

50% of the known endemic bird species of the Atlantic Forest (Aguiar et al. 2003).

The cacao growing region of southern Bahia contains some of the largest

remaining patches of Atlantic Forest, including the 11,000 hectare Una Biological

Reserve. Currently about 6,500 km2 of Theobroma cacao, a medium-sized

understory tree, are planted in this region (Aguiar et al. 2003). Many maintain some









of the original forest canopy or are interspersed with patches of natural forest (Alger

1998; Alves 1990; Buschbacher in prep.). This region's cacao agroforests have

generated considerable interest within the conservation community for their potential

to maintain forest-like landscapes and serve as biological corridors between blocks of

otherwise fragmented forest (Alger 1998; Alves 1990; Greenberg et al. 2000; Pardini

2004). Researchers in many countries have demonstrated that while agroforestry

systems are no substitute for intact forest, some wildlife species are able to use cacao-

based systems to some extent as a corridor between areas of more suitable habitat,

with more diverse systems providing more suitable habitat than less diverse systems

(Alves 1990; Greenberg et al. 2000; Laurance 2004; Reitsma et al. 2001). Pardini

(2004) carried out such a study on small mammals on fragmented areas of the Una

Biological Reserve.

Historically, cacao in Bahia was produced on large plantations with hired labor.

Many of these plantations were planted under the cabruca system, in which some of

the forest's original overstory trees were left for shade and the understory was cleared

for cacao planting (Alves 1990). The cabruca system required smaller labor

investments than clear-cut systems, and so was amenable to largely absentee estate

owners (Ruf & Schroth 2004). On some estates, cacao is planted as a row crop,

alone or with a single overstory species, often rubber or fast growing non-native trees

that provide shade. The arrival of witches broom disease (Crinipellis perniciosa), a

fungal disease, in 1989 (Alger & Caldas 1994), combined with a decline in cacao

prices at around the same time, led to the abandonment of many plantations or to their

conversion to pastures for cattle, and to the felling of remaining large trees (Alger









1998; Ruf & Schroth 2004; Trevizan 1998). Today much of the cacao produced in

Bahia is produced by small and medium-sized landholders, because of the labor

intensity required to control the disease (Rice & Greenberg 2000).

The cacao crisis in Southern Bahia helped facilitate the agrarian land reform

movement in this area. High unemployment rates resulted in an increase in

unemployed workers becoming involved in the land reform movements, including the

Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST) and others (Trevizan 1998).

With little prospect of future earnings in cacao, owners of the once-lucrative cacao

plantations were willing to sell their land to the Brazilian government for

redistribution among landless settlers (Buschbacher in prep.).

Depending on the biophysical conditions of the site, many producers in

Southern Bahia maintain diversified agroforestry systems rather than cabruca

systems. These may include cacao, rubber, cloves, black pepper, guarand, oranges

and other fruit trees, and various palm species. Jupard has worked with both

diversified producers and cacao producers, and with both agrarian reform settlements

and traditional communities.

Jupara Project History

Jupari is a Brazilian community development organization with origins in the

Catholic Church and the labor movement, which has been providing assistance to

both agrarian reform communities and traditional agricultural communities in

Southern Bahia since the 1980s. In 1994, Jupard entered into a partnership with

WWF. WWF was interested in the conservation of forest fragments in the buffer

zone of the Una Biological Reserve, and in particular the preservation of habitat for

the golden headed lion tamarin (Leontopithecus chrysomelas), an endemic primate









species. The Una Reserve was created specifically to protect this species, but studies

have determined that the reserve is not large enough to guarantee the long-term

survival of the golden headed lion tamarin (Deitz et al. 1994).

The Jupara-WWF project exemplifies the dual purpose of ICDPs,

encompassing the main goals of both partner organizations; to develop a model for

family agriculture that would both promote forest conservation among landowners in

Southern Bahia, and improve the socioeconomic conditions of families living in the

area (Buschbacher in prep.).

Beginning in 1995, Jupara formed several extension teams who began working

in 36 communities in the area, providing training in community leadership and

organization, and agroecological practices, such as the use of contour erosion barriers,

green manures and cover crops, organic fertilizers and composting, integrated pest

management, and diversification of agroforestry systems. Target practices are

described in greater detail in Table 2-1. Agroforestry is the most common

agricultural system for smallholders in Bahia, as most of the region's traditional cash

crops are tree crops, including cacao, rubber, cloves, palm fiber and fruit. Therefore,

the training was oriented more toward improvement of current agroforestry systems

and the use of organic methods rather than actual agroforestry adoption. As a result

of this training, 338 families in 14 communities received organic certification in

2002, including 9 settlements in which 100% of families received organic

certification (Buschbacher in prep.).









Table 2-1. Description of target agroecological practices.
1. Use of Organic Fertilizers. Four types of organic fertilizers were promoted by
Jupara:
Commercial Organic Fertilizer Jupara produces this fertilizer and sells it to farmers.
Homemade Liquid Organic Fertilizer A type of compost tea, using manure and
other organic ingredients, that Jupara extensionists taught farmers to make for
themselves.
Compost Composting of organic materials such as cacao shells and food scraps.
Produces a small amount of fertilizer, usually used for cacao seedlings.
Green Manures Nitrogen fixing plants that are planted either between crops or
during a fallow period and allowed to decay on site. Can be used to improve soil
quality or control erosion; farmers also report using green manures to control ants.
Species commonly used were canavalia (Canavalia enisformis) and pigeon pea
(Cajanus cajan).
2. Use of crop rotation. Rotation of the location of crops from year to year. An
annual crop should be followed by a crop from a different family. In agroforestry
systems, annual crops are gradually replaced by perennial and tree crops.
3. Multicropping. More than one species is planted in each field. Tree crops might
be
planted with annual crops or several tree crops planted together.
4. Mulching. Use of mulches such as leaves or cacao shells, usually around
the base of trees, to add nutrients and control erosion.
5. Contour erosion barriers. Planting along the countour, with the creation of some
kind of barrier to control erosion and gradually form terraces perpendicular to the
slope. The barrier is usually created by piling up the organic residue (weeds and
fallow vegetation hand cleared in preparation for planting) in contour rows.
Typically, annual crops are planted in the cleared area between the rows of residue,
and tree crops are planted in the rows. This way of treating the organic residue is
an
alternative to burning; it is labor-intensive but promotes long-term soil
productivity.
6. Elimination of Agrochemicals. Agrochemicals commonly used in Bahia include
chemical fertilizers and pesticides to eliminate leafcutter ants. Jupara hoped to
replace
these with organic products.
7. Elimination of Fire. Farmers in Bahia commonly bur to clear forest or clear
fallowed fields for planting. Jupara hoped to replace burning with intensive,
permanent agroforestry systems and the use of contour barriers.

The second stage of the Jupara-WWF program focused on commercialization of

organic cacao. In July of 1998, a local cooperative called COOPASB (a Cooperativa

dos Pequenos Produtores e Produtoras Agroecologistas do Sul da Bahia) was formed

to assist with the commercialization of agricultural products. The first large sale of









certified organic cacao for export was made in July of 2003 (Buschbacher in prep.).

In 2005, Coopasb purchased 207 tons of organic cacao produced by local

smallholders. Most of it was sold to Cargill, an international corporation that exports

cacao from the region.

Prior to this study, a comprehensive evaluation of the extent to which Jupara

communities are implementing organic agricultural practices and meeting the goals

for land use and forest conservation had not yet been performed.

Jupara has worked in varying degrees of intensity in 36 communities, with

extension efforts concentrated more intensely in those communities closer to the Una

Reserve. These 36 communities represent a wide range of economic, social, and

biophysical characteristics. Families within communities also differ in size,

socioeconomic status, farming history, size and type of landholding, levels of

participation in extension activities, and attitudes toward conservation. Given this

range of variables, we expected to find varying level of success among families in

meeting the conservation goals set forth by Jupara.

Selection of Study Sites

Two communities were selected for this evaluation, Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa

(Figure 2-1). Jupara has worked in several types of communities including land

reform settlements and traditional communities. Fortaleza is a 30-year-old land

reform settlement, and Lagoa Santa is a traditional community that has existed for

many generations. They were selected for this study because Jupara extension

support has been consistent enough to provide a reasonable test of their intervention.

Fortaleza, in particular, received a high level of extension support due to its location

close to the community reserve, and Lagoa Santa was consistently involved in Jupara









activities partly due to the efforts of one particularly dedicated community leader. In

addition, the production systems in these communities are both based on mixed

agroforestry systems and are similar enough to allow a comparison between the

communities.

These communities have strong community leaders, which facilitated both

continued participation in the Jupara project and the logistics of this research. The

political climate in the region made it unfeasible for this researcher to conduct

interviews in a community in which Jupara has not worked.


Figure 2-1. Location of study sites. Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa are shown in red.









Methods

Description of Study Sites

Fortaleza

Fortaleza is a land reform settlement in the municipality of Una, BA. Fifty

families are settled on 1102 hectares, with an average lot size of 16 hectares (INCRA

2005). Approximately 250 hectares are in community areas, including a small forest

reserve and a community cacao plantation. Families began settling the area in the

mid 1970s. At that time, the area was completely forested. Most of the settlers in

Fortaleza grew up on their parents' farms, usually also in Southern Bahia, or worked

on nearby rubber plantations before settling there. INCRA (Instituto Nacional de

Colonizagdo e Reforma Agraria, the government agency responsible for land reform)

officially divided the land and gave titles to these landholders in 1997. At this time,

some families were moved from their original plot of land to a different plot, in some

cases, a new, completely forested plot, and other families had a portion of their

original land officially titled to a neighbor. In most cases, the male head of household

received a title to his individual parcel of land. There are also a few female heads of

household. In general, each farmer and his family work their own piece of land.

Some farmers have organized a mutirdo, or a workgroup for labor exchange in which

they take turns working together in each member's field. Other than the mutirao,

landholdings are individually managed.

Farmers in Fortaleza produce mainly rubber and cacao as cash crops, as well as

some manioc, corn, fruit and vegetable crops for consumption. Few families own

livestock beyond one mule, for hauling cacao, and a few chickens. On average, 47%

of family income comes from agricultural production and 53% comes from off-farm









sources, usually employment in the nearby town of Una, or retirement pensions.

Most of the agricultural income comes from rubber. Nine families have received

organic certification through the Jupara program.

Although this area has been settled for more than 30 years, it still lacks many

basic services. Only a small part of the community has electricity, and bus service is

sporadic at best. Water is obtained from springs along a small stream, sometimes at a

considerable distance from the family's home, and basic sanitation is completely

lacking.

Many of the original farmers in Fortaleza are getting older and have children

who are married and beginning their own families. In some cases, the land has been

unofficially divided among several sons. In one case, 23 people are surviving on the

production of one 17 hectare parcel. In other cases, the children of these farmers

work in Una or on nearby plantations. Recently Jupara has helped to organize a new

group of landless rural workers, composed primarily of the sons and daughters of the

farmers in Fortaleza. The group is petitioning INCRA to grant them title to a new

settlement on a nearby piece of land. The group chose not to occupy the land and

remain in Fortaleza with their parents, awaiting a decision from INCRA.

Lagoa Santa

Lagoa Santa is a traditional agricultural community located in the municipality

of Itubera. Lagoa Santa is a quilombo community, or a community that was

originally founded by a group of escaped slaves. Families of the residents have

farmed this land for several generations; as a result the landholdings have been

divided several times among farmers' descendants, and landholdings tend to be small.

Landholding size ranged from 2 to 25 hectares, with an average size of 9 hectares.









Many of the larger landholdings are shared by extended families. Little native forest

remains in this area.

INCRA does not keep maps and records of older quilombo communities as it

does for more recent settlements, so it is uncertain how many families live in Lagoa

Santa and how much area the community encompasses. About 30 families are

members of the community organization, but many other residents do not participate.

Lagoa Santa is one of several quilombos in a cluster of small communities. Some

members of these nearby communities participated in the Jupard project and several

participants from the neighboring quilombo Campo da Amancio were also

interviewed for this study to increase the sample size.

Farmers in Lagoa Santa maintain diverse agroforestry systems similar to those

in Fortaleza, producing mainly rubber, cloves, piassava palm fiber for roofing

material, and small amounts of cacao, black pepper, and manioc flour. On average,

67% of family income comes from agriculture and the remaining 33% comes from

off-farm sources, including employment in Ituberi and on nearby plantations. Only

one family maintains organic certification through the Jupard project.

Like Fortaleza, Lagoa Santa lacks electricity, potable water, basic sanitation,

and regular public transportation services.

Field Methods

A total of 50 household interviews were conducted in June, July and August of

2005. Jupard staff presented me to each community at the start of my fieldwork, and

I stayed in each community alone to conduct the interviews. I visited each

community twice, first spending two weeks in each community, returning to Ilheus to









conduct preliminary data analysis, and then returning to each community for a second

visit of about 10 days.

In Fortaleza, the fifty existing households were classified as participants,

former participants, or non-participants. Current members of the COOPASB

cooperative were considered participants, past members were considered former

participants, and non-members were considered non-participants. All of the

participants and former participants were interviewed, and of the remaining non-

participants, a random sample of 10 was selected, for a total of 30 interviews. In

Lagoa Santa, no map or list of present households existed, so households were

sampled opportunistically for a total of 20 interviews, 10 with participants and 10

with non-participants.

Interview content included questions concerning family demographics,

agricultural practices, and land cover distribution, as listed in Table 2-2. To assist

participants in describing their property's land cover distribution and the size and age

of agroforestry systems, a participatory mapping activity was carried out in which

participants were asked to draw a map of their landholding. Annual family income

was calculated by asking the respondent to list the products that he or she sells, their

approximate market price, and quantity harvested per month or year.

For each household interviewed, the researcher also toured the property with

the landowner to verify information obtained in the interview, and to collect GPS

points and a brief description of each of the land cover types present on the property.









Table 2-2. Interview content
Explanatory Variables
Participation in:
Community and regional training
Jupara extension visits
Demonstration plots and workgroups
Women's development activities
Health and environmental education
activities
Community organizations
Leadership positions in community
organizations

Family Characteristics:
Family size
Workers on and off farm
Number of years farming this site
Years of primary education

Size of landholding


Data Analysis

Participation

To measure a family's level of participation in the Jupara program, participants

were asked whether or not they had participated in a number of Jupara sponsored

activities, and whether they had participated once, several times, or many times.

Participants were also asked whether or not they were a present or past member of

COOPASB or any other organization, and whether they had ever held a leadership

position in any of these organizations.

Families' involvement in the Jupara program varied considerably. In order to

consider participation as a continuous variable, rather than comparing groups of

participants and non-participants, each activity was given a numeric score. Most

activities were scored 1 for participating once, 2 for participating several times, and 3


Response Variables
Agricultural practices, including use
of:
Organic fertilizers
Composting
Green manures
Contour erosion barriers
Crop rotation
Multicropping
Mulching
Chemical fertilizers
Burning

Land cover types present:
Forest, agroforestry, capoeira (fallow
areas and forest regrowth), annual
crops, pasture

Income
Diversity of products
On and off farm income









for participating many times. Activities which were more difficult for farmers to

participate in, such as traveling to attend a regional training event, or indicated a

higher level of participation, such as joining the COOPASB cooperative, were more

heavily weighted, as indicated in Table 2-3.

The sum of these was calculated to give an overall participation score for each

family. The distribution of participation scores in Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa are

shown in Figure 2-2.

Because the development of the participation score was somewhat subjective,

the validity of the score was verified by producing 10 variations of the score and

comparing them statistically to one another. Five scores were created based on the

author's judgment of five possible ways of choosing participation criteria and

weighting them, and five more were produced by randomly eliminating some

components and weighting the components randomly. A correlation matrix was

generated to compare the scores to each other, and showed that the scores were

correlated, with p<0.001 in all cases. A second correlation matrix compared the rank

of each family using the 10 participation scores; rankings were also highly correlated

in all cases, p<0.001. Because the families' rankings changed little with each

variation of the participation score, we can say that no matter which version of the

score is used, families with high participation will consistently have a high

participation score, and families with lower participation will score lower.











Table 2-3. Jupara sponsored activities and corresponding participation scores.


Regional Training in:
Agroecology 0
Women's Issues 0
Other (health, cooperatives) 0

Community Training in:
Agroecology 0
Women's Issues 0
Other (health, cooperatives, 0
theater, or environmental education)


= never, 3 = once, 4 = several times, 5 = many times
= never, 3 = once, 4 = several times, 5 = many times
= never, 3 = once, 4 = several times, 5 = many times


= never, 1 = once, 2 = several times, 3 = many times
= never, 1 = once, 2 = several times, 3 = many times
S= never, 1 = once, 2 = several times, 3 = many times


Received a visit from:
An agronomist (male) 0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = several times, 3 = many times
An environmental educator (female) 0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = several times, 3 = many times


Visited another Jupara Community

Participated in a Demonstrative Plot
or community plot.

Participated in a "Mutirao"
(Community work group)

Member of Coopasb

Member of another organization

Woman is also a member.

Has held a leadership position
in one of these organizations


0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = several times, 3 = many times

0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = several times, 3 = many times


0 = never, 1 = occasionally, 2 = participated
in the past, 3 = participating regularly now.

0 = no, 3 = past member, 5 = current member

0 = no, 1 = yes

0 = no, 1 = yes

0 = no
3 = president
1 = all other leadership positions










Figure 2-2. Range of participation scores in Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa.


50
A

40

A
a a
30

A

20 a
oo a
0A
U) A Membership
c 0
o 10 0 A Coopasb Member
CoU
SPast Coopasb Member

U 0 O Non-Member
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Community 1 = Fortaleza, 2 = Lagoa Santa


Use of Agroecological Practices

Families were asked whether or not they were currently using a variety of

traditional and innovative agroecological practices on their properties. Because the

use of some practices tended to be highly correlated with the use of other practices,

these data were reduced using a Principal Components Analysis (PCA). The first

component of the PCA produced a continuum of practices, ranging from ecologically

destructive practices on one end, such as burning and the use of chemical fertilizers,

to more innovative and ecologically desirable practices on the other end, such as the

use of organic fertilizers, as illustrated in Figure 2-3. Practices which were more

commonly practiced and possibly easier to implement, such as crop rotation and

mulching, fell somewhere in the middle. This scale is labeled the Ecological

Desirability of Practices. The PCA produced a score somewhere along this











continuum for each family. This scale of the Ecological Desirability of Practices was


used in the subsequent analysis to represent the extent to which families had


implemented agroecological practices.



Figure 2-3. Component plot for principal components analysis. Component one
orders practices from ecologically destructive to ecologically beneficial.


1.0
conto jr Legend:
S ien_m
Toxics -Uses agrochemicals
rotation mulchco"rI st including fertilizers.
.5 U Burning -Uses fire to clear fields
tox ics Rotation -Uses crop rotation
Contour -Uses contour erosion
multi cr barriers
S org_fert Green_m -Plants green manures
hm fert U Mulch Uses mulch around
0.0 burning plants or trees.
Compost -Composts organic
materials for fertilizer.
Multi_cr -Uses multicropping.
Hm fert -Makes and uses
homemade liquid
-.5 organic fertilizer
SOrg_fert Purchases and uses
a commercial organic
O_ fertilizer
E
0
0 -1.o0
-1.0 -.5 0.0 .5 1.0

Component 1 Ecological Desirability of Practices


Multiple Regressions

For each community, six stepwise multiple regression models were used to


compare the effects of participation, using the index previously described, and nine


other family attributes, on six outcome variables that represent Jupara's goals for


conservation and adoption of agroecological practices. Family attributes included


family size, ratio of farm and off farm workers to total family members, ratio of farm


workers to total family members, age and education level of household head, size of


landholding, years the farmer has farmed this plot, income, and percent of total









income derived from farming. Outcome variables included the use of agroecological

practices (Ecological Desirability of Practices score and number of practices

implemented), percent of landholding in forest cover, percent of landholding in

agroforestry, number of products produced for sale, and farm income.

Several other family attribute variables were considered but were found to be

correlated with one or more of these variables and were eliminated. The

Kolmogorov-Smimov test was used to confirm that data were normally distributed.

Results

Comparison of communities

Descriptive data collected in the two communities reveals some similarities

and differences between Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa (Table 2-4). Families in Lagoa

Santa are slightly larger, have more farm workers, and earn a larger percentage of

their income from farming than families in Fortaleza. Level of basic education in

Fortaleza is slightly higher, though in Fortaleza, non-participants are generally more

educated than participants, while in Lagoa Santa, participants have more years of

education.

The most apparent difference between Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa is in the

distribution of land uses. Participants in Lagoa Santa tend to have more land than

non-participants, while in Fortaleza all landholdings are virtually the same size.

Landholders in Lagoa Santa dedicate a larger percentage of their landholdings to

agroforestry systems and have considerably less forested and fallowed areas than

farmers in Fortaleza. Landholdings in Fortaleza are much larger than those in Lagoa

Santa. In both communities, land use distribution between groups of participants and

non-participants are similar.














Table 2-4. Descriptive statistics by groups for two communities. P=Participants, FP = Former Participants, NP = Non-Participants.
Fortaleza Lagoa Santa
P FP NP All Std.dev P NP All Std.dev.


Family Size
Total Family Members
On-farm Workers
Off-farm Workers
Children living outside community

Average Age of all family members
Head of Household Age

Years of education
Head of Household
Ages 18-30
Ages 31-50
Ages 51+

Years farming on current property

Family Landholding
Total Area
Hectares Agroforestry
% Agroforestry
Age of Oldest Agroforestry System
Age of Newest Agroforestry System

Hectares Natural Forest
% Natural Forest
Years since most recent deforestation


5.75 7.11
1.71 2.17
4.04 4.94
2.45 5.63


5.44 6.07 4.19
2.03 1.85 1.30
3.42 1.23 1.00
3.29 3.65 3.19


25.55 29.54 26.80 27.28 21.9
55.00 55.11 51.67 52.17 13.3


1.58 1.22 2.78 1.83 1.91
7.70 5.92 7.46 7.00 3.37
6.75 3.75 2.36 4.07 3.11
1.44 0.63 1.31 1.05 1.25

16.92 25.00 19.44 20.10 9.09


16.42 16.06 15.24 15.96 1.30
7.75 8.00 7.72 7.82 3.27
36.4% 33.1% 37.7% 39.1% 15.6%
14.17 17.56 23.13 17.68 8.80
6.46 6.56 6.33 6.45 5.07

3.58 2.56 3.00 3.10 3.45
36.4% 33.1% 37.9% 36.0% 17.9%
9.75 12.00 12.83 11.40 7.20


Hectares Fallow and/or Forest Regrowth 1.79 2.22 3.39 2.40 2.17
% Fallow/Forest Regrowth 18.4% 10.8% 8.3% 12.3% 11.5


Hectares Annual Crops
% Annual Crops


1.71 1.42 1.25 1.48 1.38
6.4% 7.0% 8.3% 7.3% 6.5%


6.25 8.28 7.35 5.56
2.94 2.46 2.65 1.43
0.28 1.25 0.86 0.83
2.25 4.20 3.00 3.28

22.05 26.68 29.31 10.68
47.13 59.83 52.60 11.15


2.88 1.00 1.75
4.39 6.71 5.04
3.17 2.20 2.73
0.07 1.67 0.33


26.88 30.42 29.00 19.03


11.81 7.85 9.43 7.40
8.63 5.46 6.73 5.40
75.8% 73.8% 74.6% 20.3%
19.00 23.00 21.22 10.26
6.44 5.44 5.91 4.14

1.63 0.77 1.11 2.67
8.9% 7.4% 8.0% 15.2%
8.20 16.75 12.00 9.74

0.91 0.58 0.71 1.06
7.8% 8.8% 8.4% 10.4%

0.91 0..81 0.85 0.97
7.5% 13.6% 11.1% 14.4%














Table 2-4. Continued


Hectares Pasture
% Pasture


Total Income in Brazilian Reis
Farm Income
Other Income
% income from farming


Fortaleza
P FP NP All Std.dev
0.88 0.75 1.66 1.08 1.13
8.6% 3.9% 4.1% 5.4% 5.8%

6202 10659 10317 8700 4617
3153 4470 3912 3775 2290
3127 6188 6405 4925 3689
50.9% 46.6% 36.8% 45.2% 26.3%


Lagoa Santa
P NP


All Std.dev.


0.63 0.75 0.70 1.03
3.2% 2.9% 3.0% 3.8%

7721 10055 8581 4341
3347 8861 5375 3716
4383 1193 3206 3717
49.2% 92.7% 66.6% 30.8%











Regression Analysis of participation and family attributes on program
implementation

Fortaleza

Participation positively influenced the implementation of sustainable agricultural


practices, as indicated by both the ecological desirability of practices score and the total

number of practices implemented, as well as farm income, but did not influence land

cover. Stepwise multiple regression analyses indicated a variety of significant

relationships between the outcome variables and other socioeconomic factors, as

illustrated in Table 2-5.



Table 2-5. Multiple regression models for Fortaleza.

Outcome Variable Significant Predictors B t Sig. (p) R2
Ecological Participation 0.491 3.426 0.002 0.511
Desirability of Ratio of Farm workers/total family 0.353 2.558 0.017
Practices Score Education 0.321 2.237 0.034

# Organic practices Participation 0.532 3.328 0.002 0.283

#Ag. Products Education 0.494 3.113 0.004 0.321
Size of lot 0.298 1.880 0.071

% Agroforestry Education 0.421 2.588 0.015 0.288
Years on Lot 0.349 2.149 0.041

% Natural Forest Years on Lot -0.466 -2.789 0.009 0.271

Farm income % income from Agriculture 0.685 6.108 0.000 0.768
Family size 0.397 3.660 0.001
Participation 0.377 3.275 0.003
Years on Lot 0.263 2.226 0.036
Size of Lot 0.211 1.769 0.090


Predictors eliminated from all models: Ratio of total workers (on and off-farm) to total family members
Age of Head of Household

Lagoa Santa

Participation positively influenced the number of organic practices implemented,

the diversity of agricultural products produced for sale, and farm income, but did not

influence land cover. Other predictors were significant as indicated in Table 2-6.











Table 2-6. Multiple regression models for Lagoa Santa.
Dependant Variable Predictor B
Ecological Education 0.508
Desirability of
Practices Score

# Organic practices Ratio Farm workers/total family -0.510
Participation 0.505

# Ag. Products Participation 0.793

% Agroforestry Family Size 0.455

% Natural Forest None significant

Farm income Participation 0.480
Age of household head 0.362

Predictors eliminated from all models: Ratio of workers to total family members
Years on lot
% of income from agriculture
Size of lot


Sig. (p) R2
0.022 0.259


t
2.505



-2.780
2.751

5.531

2.168



2.530
1.910


0.013
0.014

0.000

0.044



0.022
0.073


0.440


0.630

0.207



0.393


Use of Agricultural Practices

Multiple regression analyses examined overall implementation of agroecological


practices, but did not assess which practices were implemented by farmers and which


were not. Looking at each specific practice, we find that some practices were adopted by


Jupara participants more often than non-participants, others were in use by virtually


everyone, and others weren't adopted at all. These data help determine which practices


are most acceptable, and which are most difficult to implement.


Fortaleza

Figure 2-4 shows the percentage of participants, former participants, and non


participants in Fortaleza who adopted each of the practices. Some practices were seldom


adopted by any group, including the use of green manures, homemade liquid organic


fertilizer, and composting. Others, contour erosion barriers, use of commercial organic


fertilizer, which is sold by Juparai, and abandonment of agrochemicals, were adopted by


participants more often than non-participants. Participants eliminated the use of burning


only slightly more often than non-participants. The remaining practices, crop rotation,











mulching, and multicropping, were in use by participants and non-participants alike and


may be considered traditional practices in Fortaleza.


100%



y 80%






o
60%




0
40%



20%




Green Manures Homemade Composting Contour Commercial No Burning No Crop Rotation Mulching Multi-cropping
Organic Erosion Organic Agrochemicals
Fertilizer Barriers Fertilizer

Non-Participants 0 Former Participants U Current Participants


Figure 2-4. Adoption of agroecological practices in Fortaleza.


Lagoa Santa

Results were similar in Lagoa Santa, as shown in Figure 2-5. Green manures and


homemade liquid organic fertilizer were the least adopted practices for all groups.


Composting was adopted more often by non-participants. Contour erosion barriers,


commercial organic fertilizer, and the elimination of agrochemicals were adopted more


often by participants than non-participants. Around 40% of farmers in both groups had


eliminated the use of fire, and crop rotation, mulching, and multicropping were used by


almost all farmers in both groups.












100%


80%


o 60%


S40%


2 20%


0%
Green Homemade Composting Contour Commercial No Burning No Crop Rotation Mulching Multi-cropping
Manures Organic Erosion Organic Agrochemicals
Fertilizer Barriers Fertilizer


U Non Participants U Participants

Figure 2-5. Adoption of agroecological practices in Lagoa Santa

Land Cover

Average reported land use distributions in Fortaleza (Figure 2-6) and Lagoa Santa


(Figure 2-7) appear to be similar among groups of participants and non-participants, but


different between the two communities. Lagoa Santa has much less forest cover and


much more agroforestry. Graphs for Fortaleza are adjusted to include the community


forest reserve.



Non-Participants Former Participants Current Participants





36%
39% 43%




11% 17%


O Agroforestry U Annual Crops U Pasture O Capoeira U Forest


Figure 2-6. Land cover distribution in Fortaleza, as reported by farmers.











Participants Non Participants


8% 9%



74%
76%


I Agroforestry m Annual Crops Pasture o Capoeira m Forest


Figure 2-7. Land Cover Distribution in Lagoa Santa, as reported by farmers.

These figures report the average of the reported land use distributions. This can be

deceiving, especially in Fortaleza. On, average, the land use goal of 30% forest appears

to be met. However, these averages reflect the fact that some farmers on newer lots have

more than 30% of their area still forested, while others have no forest at all. Figure 2-8

shows the percentage of landowners meeting land use goals in each community. In all

groups, 55% or less of the farmers interviewed meet the goal for forest cover. The goal

for each property is 12.5% in Fortaleza after the community reserve is accounted for, and

30% in Lagoa Santa.










100%
O0
90%
S80%
S70%
CM
S60%
E 50%

S40%
30%
20%-

0.
20%
Non- Former Participants F Non- Participants -
participants F Participants F participants LS
LS
o Agroforestry
E Forest

Figure 2-8. Percentage of landowners meeting land use goals in Fortaleza (F) and Lagoa
Santa (LS) for Agroforestry and Forest.

Discussion

Agroecological Practices

The Jupara Project was successful in teaching agroecological practices such as the

use of organic fertilizers, composting, and contour erosion barriers, and reducing or

eliminating the use of agrochemicals and fire. Multiple regression analyses indicate that

participation in Jupara had a highly significant effect on the implementation of organic

practices on a scale defined by the Ecological Desirability of Practices Score in Fortaleza,

diversity of agricultural products in Lagoa Santa, and number of organic practices

implemented in both of these communities.

In addition to participation in the Jupara program, availability of farm workers, as

measured by ratio of farm workers to total family members, and educational level of the

household head, also positively influenced the use of agroecological practices. In

Fortaleza, education significantly influenced the diversity of agricultural products for sale









and the area of agroforestry systems established. The fact that education was often a

significant influence on more than one of these outcome variables might indicate that in

addition to extension services, rural communities benefit from access to basic education.

In both communities, some practices were implemented more often than others.

Practices tended to fall into one of three categories: practices implemented by almost

everyone, practices implemented by almost no one, and practices implemented more

often by participants than by non-participants. Almost all of the farmers interviewed

were using crop rotation, multicropping, and mulching. These three practices might be

considered traditional practices in these communities, since they are used even by those

who had no contact with the Jupara program. Participating farmers may also have been

influenced by their non-participating neighbors to adopt some practices, especially in

Fortaleza, where the program was very visible, even to non-participants.

Green manures, homemade liquid organic fertilizer, and compost were among the

least utilized practices. Green manures were used by less than 20% of both participants

and non-participants in all three communities. This practice may not have been as

vigorously promoted as some of the others, as many farmers had never even heard of the

practice, and seeds were not readily available. The few farmers who did report using

green manures reported using them as a pest control method against leaf-cutter ants,

rather than as a source of fertilizer.

Compost was used by less than 40% of farmers, and homemade liquid fertilizer

was used by only around 20% of farmers. Many farmers explained that these two

techniques required the availability of manure, and most of them do not have livestock,

so manure is not easily accessible. Some farmers compost kitchen scraps and agricultural









wastes such as the outer shells of cacao pods, but generally there is not enough

compostable organic material available to produce enough compost or compost tea to

depend on it as a main source of organic fertilizer.

In Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa, the elimination of agrochemicals, the use of

commercial organic fertilizer, and the use of contour erosion barriers are practiced much

more often by participants than not participants. In this case, Jupara produces the

commercial organic fertilizer and sells it to farmers. While it appears to provide a

satisfactory replacement for chemical fertilizers for farmers who choose it, it is slightly

more expensive than chemical fertilizer, requires a larger quantity per hectare, and thus is

more difficult to transport. Many farmers stated this expense and difficulty of

transportation as primary reasons for not using the commercial organic fertilizer.

Contour erosion barriers are labor intensive and require some technical expertise to

create. Increased use by participants might indicate that Jupara was successful in

providing this technical expertise and motivating farmers to invest in a labor intensive but

ecologically beneficial process.

Contour erosion barriers should reduce the use of fire, as a permanent vegetative

barrier is planted on top of the erosion barrier, so the use of fire would destroy the

established barrier. Disappointingly, 60% of farmers in Lagoa Santa still bum their fields

before planting, and project participants are as likely to bum as non-participants. In

Fortaleza, 50% of participants, 67% of former participants, and 33% of non-participants,

burn. Many of the same farmers implementing contour erosion barriers on one part of

their property may be using fire somewhere else. However, burning was measured as a

yes or no variable, and these data do not describe the type of burning practiced. Most









respondents reported using fire only to clear recently fallowed areas for planting, and not

as a means of clearing forest.

These data also indicate that eliminating the use of fire as a management tool may

be the most difficult of Jupara's target practices to implement.

Income

Families participating in the project tended to have higher levels of farm income

than those not participating, and in Lagoa Santa, participating families produced a greater

diversity of products for sale. While it's possible that participation in the extension

program enabled families to create more productive farms, it's also possible that those

with already productive farms, or those most dependent on farm income, were more

likely to participate in the program.

Family size, lot size, number of years farming the lot, and age of household head

were also all positively correlated with farm income in one or more communities,

according to the linear regression models. In both Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa, total

income was higher for non-participants than for participants, but farm income was higher

for participants than non-participants. Thus, participants tended to derive a higher

percentage of their total income from agriculture, especially in Lagoa Santa, where

participants earned 92.7% of their income from agriculture, while non-participants earned

only 49.2% of their income from agriculture. This may indicate that those who depend

highly on agriculture for their livelihoods have a greater incentive to invest in a program

such as Jupara, while those earning a portion of their income from an off-farm source

may be too busy to participate, or, since generally they are already earning an equal or

higher income through wage labor than they would earn farming, they may not feel that

such an investment is necessary.









Land Cover

Participating families did not conserve more forest or implement more agroforestry

systems than non-participating families. In Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa, extensive

conversion of forest to agroforestry had already occurred before the program began, and

the ten-year period of the program may not be a sufficient length of time for changes in

land cover patterns, such as the regrowth of secondary forests, to develop in response to

changes in practice initiated by the Jupara program.

Farmers in Fortaleza are meeting Jupara's goals of maintaining a minimum of 40%

of the area in agroforestry and 30% of natural forest more often than farmers in Lagoa

Santa. In Fortaleza, 20% of the community's total area is conserved as a forest reserve.

To maintain a total of 30% forested, individual farmers would have to conserve an

additional 12.5% of the individual landholding in natural forest. On average, 19% of

each individual landholding is forested, with 43% of farmers maintaining at least 12.5%

forested. The multiple regression model demonstrated that the factor most affecting

forest cover is the number of years the family has been farming the lot (p=0.009). Forest

cover decreases with time, and families with large amounts of forest cover are those who

were moved to new, forested lots when INCRA officially delineated the properties in

1997, as shown in Chapter 4. Most farmers reported settling on a completely forested lot

at some point in the past, and converting it to agriculture over a period of several years.

In Lagoa Santa, the area has been used for farming for many generations. After

several generations of dividing the land among family members, some lots are very small

and most are completely invested in intensive agriculture and agroforestry; on average,

75% of lots are in agroforestry systems. Due to this long history of agricultural use, it's

not surprising that Lagoa Santa has less forest cover remaining, on average 8% of each









lot, though many farmers have no forest at all. There is no community forest reserve in

Lagoa Santa, and only 2 farmers meet the goal of conserving 30% of the land in natural

forest. Some farmers stated that they are maintaining an area of forest regrowth as their

reserve, and on average 8.4% of lots were in forest regrowth. Farmers reported an

average of 12 years since the most recent deforestation on the site, so it is likely that most

of the deforestation in this area occurred before the Jupara program began working in the

region.

Additional analysis of a time series of satellite images is provided in Chapter 4 to

more fully understand the changes in land cover patterns before and after the Jupara

program.

Success of the Jupara Agroecology Project

Based on these results, was Jupara an effective integrated conservation and

development project? Are families meeting the project goals?

Results of this program evaluation are in agreement with several other published

ICDP evaluations (Browder 2002; Perz 2004): development goals seem to be met more

frequently than conservation ones. In both communities, participation in the Jupara

program influenced the implementation of more sustainable production practices and

enabled farmers to meet the requirements for organic certification, though the

certification itself wasn't actually maintained in all cases.

Participating farmers have higher farm incomes than non-participating farmers,

which may or may not be a result of participation in the program. The commercialization

aspect of the Jupara program hasn't been fully implemented. Currently they buy and sell

only organic cacao through the Coopasb cooperative. In communities where farmers

produce mainly cacao, an effective commercialization system is in place. For other









farmers with more diverse systems, as in Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa, commercialization

is more difficult, as it is more difficult to market smaller quantities of many things, and

for some products, little market exists for organic certified products.

Generally, these two communities are not meeting the program goals for forest

conservation. Fortaleza has a small community reserve, encompassing about 20% of the

community's total area, but less than half of the farmers there are able to maintain the

expected amount of forest on their individual properties. Lagoa Santa has no forest

reserve, and only two farmers meet the goal of 30% forest cover. Data presented here

offer no indication that farmers participating in this project conserve more forest than

non-participants.

These results are consistent with Alger and Caldas' 1998 finding that Bahian

farmers on smaller lots are less likely to conserve forests than those on larger lots.

Jupara'a goals for forest conservation are particularly challenging, then, since all farmers

interviewed had landholdings smaller than 20 hectares. In Lagoa Santa, lots are smaller

on average than in Fortaleza, and less forest remains.

However, this study did not consider the quantity of forest present at the start of the

Jupara project. Many farmers stated that their property was entirely deforested and

converted to agriculture years before they realized that deforestation was a problem, and

expressed regret at this loss. Obviously, people cannot be expected to conserve

something they don't have in the first place. In order to fully justify an integrated

conservation and development project like the Jupara project, monitoring is needed

before, during and after the project. It is difficult to evaluate project outcomes if we

don't have any baseline data on land cover or agricultural practices at the start of the









project. Analysis of satellite imagery might be one way to understand when most of the

forest loss occurred, as well as to observe trends in forest regrowth.

Finally, we have to make sure that both environmental and development goals of

ICDPs are realistic. It simply is not realistic to expect a family of 10 to survive on three

hectares of land, as was the case for one family in Lagoa Santa, and still maintain 30% of

their three hectares in a natural forest reserve. In an evaluation of a USAID funded

project in Madagascar, Peters (1998) recognizes this top-down approach to defining goals

and expectations as one of the major weaknesses of integrated conservation and

development projects. He suggests giving local people a participatory voice in defining

project objectives, as their perspective on what might be feasible and important might

differ greatly from the perspective of USAID, or in this case, WWF.

Browder (2002) makes the important point that ICDPs often lack functional

linkages between specific development activities and desired conservation outcomes.

Results of the Jupara project support this criticism. While the use of organic agricultural

practices may contribute to overall ecosystem health and develop a mindset of

environmental stewardship among participants, organic agriculture and resulting

increased incomes do not necessarily prevent deforestation.

In southern Bahia specifically, Alger (1998) points out that promoting agroforestry

by itself does not conserve biodiversity, in fact, it can result in further fragmentation of

existing forest fragments. In areas with many small farmers, the law requires only a

small forest reserve on each farm, and reserves on individual farms don't conserve much

biodiversity if farms and family reserves are disconnected from each other.

Conservation in communities of smallholders will require landscape-level participatory






45


planning to unify forest reserves and maintain connectivity between them, and this

community process will likely occur separately from the family-level process of

implementing organic agriculture.














CHAPTER 3
CONSERVATION AND AGRARIAN REFORM IN SOUTHERN BAHIA, THE CASE
OF CASCATA

Introduction

"You have probably passed by an encampment in your car or on the bus. Maybe

you have seen a march of the landless people. Certainly you have seen on television, or

in a newspaper or magazine, news of land conflicts or occupations," write Stedile and

Sergio (1993) in A lutapela terra no Brasil (The Fight for Land in Brazil), a small book

intended to explain to the wider Brazilian public the basic ideology of the MST

(Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra, The Landless Rural Workers

Movement). Groups of rural landless workers, living in makeshift plastic tents and

awaiting settlement by the Brazilian government, are indeed a common sight along the

highways in many parts of Brazil.

Brazil has the second most unequal distribution of land in the world, behind only

neighboring Paraguay (Domingos 2002). Eighty-nine percent of farms are less than 100

hectares in size and equal 20% of the total land area. One percent of farms are more than

1000 hectares in size, and equal 45% of the land area (Domingos 2002).

Conflicts over land tenure have been present throughout Brazilian history and

continue today. Historically, land reform in Brazil has occurred on lands considered

unproductive, often on forested or ecologically fragile lands, leading to further

environmental degradation and deforestation as settlers carve out an agricultural

livelihood from forested land. Te6filo and Garcia (2003) found that of the land









appropriated by INCRA between 1997 and 1999, only 21% of it was in agricultural use

before occupation, often because its soil, topography, or market access was poorly suited

for agriculture.

In recent years, an outbreak of Witches' Broom Disease has changed the dynamics

of this process in Southern Bahia. As productivity of cacao plantations decreased, large

landowners were more willing to sell their lands for redistribution through land reform.

Higher quality lands are now available for settlement, and the violence once

characteristic of land invasions is decreasing (Buschbacher in prep.).

In addition to their work in agricultural extension, Jupara has been highly involved

in the rural land reform movement in Southern Bahia, and changes in the land reform

process have led to changes in Jupara's community work. The agricultural extension

project described in Chapter 2 was originally conceived to function in traditional

agricultural communities and older, well established land reform communities in which

each family managed an individual unit of land. In recent years, the project has been

adapted to also function on resettled cacao estates, where production strategies tend to be

more collective. This chapter explains Jupara's involvement in the land reform

movement and presents the results of the agroecology extension project on a newly

settled cacao estate, Cascata.

JuparA and Land Reform

INCRA (Instituto Nacional de Colonizagdo e Reforma Agraria, or National

Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform) is the federal agency responsible for land

reform in Brazil and has an office in each Brazilian state. INCRA is responsible for the

purchase of the land from its original owner, assessing how many families should be

settled onto the property, and deciding who those families will be.









Both INCRA and the communities involved depend greatly on a handful of land

reform NGOs to facilitate the land reform process. The MST (Movement of the Landless

Workers), and the CPT (Catholic Pastoral Commission of the Land) are some well-

known examples. Many other organizations also exist and function similarly, such as

MLT (Movement for the Struggle of the Landless) and MSLT (The Land Liberation

Movement.)

In addition to providing agricultural extension services in established communities,

Jupara also provides support to a number of "encampments," or communities in the

process of acquiring land on which to settle. In southern Bahia there are many of these

encampments, basically communities living in black plastic tents along the highways,

indicating their intention to settle on the adjacent land. These people are unemployed

plantation workers, sons and daughters of farmers whose landholding is too small to

support them, or even city dwellers looking for a better life. The political process

involved in the formation of a new land reform community is complicated and often takes

years.

Most encampments receive assistance from a land reform NGO in applying to

INCRA for settlement. According to Cullen et al. (2005), only 5% of land reform

projects in Brazil were initiated by INCRA. The other 95% were initiated by land reform

NGOs, who organized a group of settlers and petitioned INCRA's cooperation.

Settlement is a community process. When land is settled, INCRA grants an

Emissdo de Posse, or right of land use, to the community association rather than to

individuals. Generally a community will work with only one land reform NGO, and

these NGOs tend to differ in their philosophies in how a community should be managed.









These communities will often live for a number of years in an encampment until they are

granted a piece of land, so community organization is very important, both before and

after settlement. The land reform NGOs assist with this organizational process and with

the development of community leaders.

The Jupara extensionists have an extensive and complex history of work with land

reform over the past 10 years. When they began working with encampments in the mid

1980s, the process usually involved the violent occupation of a piece of land, usually

forested land or land of poor soil quality, that was considered "socially unproductive" by

Brazilian law and thus eligible for reappropriation, whether the landowner wanted to give

up this land or not. Some of these lands were known as "latifundos," a term which refers

to very large rural landholdings, parts of which are often left fallow or forested. Any land

which was not currently dedicated to the active production of agricultural goods, or did

not generate employment for local workers, was considered eligible for land reform.

According to a 1993 MST report, 180 million hectares were classified as "latifundos" in

Brazil. Redistribution of these lands is the focus of the agrarian reform movement

(Stedile & Sergio 1993).

In 1989, Witches Broom Disease broke out in the cacao plantations of Bahia, and

led many plantation owners to stop investing in the labor and fertilizer inputs necessary

for cacao production. Lack of care, fertilization, and pruning allowed the disease to

spread even more rapidly through the plantations, further reducing their productivity.

This change facilitated the land reform movement in southern Bahia. Unemployment of

former plantation workers resulted in an increase in the number of workers and families

becoming involved in the land reform movements of the time, the MST and others,









including Jupard (Trevizan 1998). With little prospect of future earnings in cacao,

owners of the once-lucrative cacao plantations were willing to sell their land to the

Brazilian government for redistribution among landless settlers, with much less violent

conflict than in previous years (Buschbacher in prep.). For this reason, the Jupard

extensionists sometimes referred to Witches' Broom Disease as "a santa vassoura da

bruxa," or Saint Witches' Broom. Management of the disease is labor intensive and can

be carried out more effectively by smallholders than by large plantation owners. Most of

the recent land reform settlements are on former cacao plantations. Families receive a

small area of established cacao, which they clean and prune, replant cacao where

necessary, and eventually bring back into production.

Land reform in Bahia continues to evolve and many families continue to await

resettlement, while living under black plastic and depending on food aid from the

government, churches, and NGOs. While this process is happening throughout Brazil,

according to MST's website (www.mst.org.br) (MST 2006), in 2003 Bahia had more

encampments than any other state, with 20,000 MST-sponsored individuals awaiting

resettlement.

Cascata, a Land Reform Settlement

Most recently, Jupard's work has focused on newer land reform settlements,

usually on former cacao plantations. In addition, Jupard has worked with encampments,

or groups of people awaiting settlement through the land reform process. Extension

services are provided before the community is settled on the landholding, and landholders

have had Jupard support for the entire period of land ownership. Often potential

landowners are from urban areas or are former plantation workers, and have little

experience in agriculture and the decisions involved in land management. Extension









programs in encampments focus on community organization, environmental education,

and sustainable agriculture and land management, so that when future landowners

actually receive their own plot, they are prepared to make environmentally and

economically sound decisions. Typically, communities which have recently passed

through the encampment process are more unified than older communities, and usually

all families participate in the Jupara project. Often residents live in the workers' houses

left behind by the plantation owners, so all community members live in a central

residential area, with agricultural areas located outside of the residential area.

Cascata is one cacao plantation community that began collaborating with Jupara

while still an encampment. Many differences in the production strategies, biophysical

characteristics, age of the community, and level of participation in extension activities in

Cascata make it difficult to compare directly with older communities like Fortaleza and

Lagoa Santa. A small number of interviews were also conducted in Cascata, in order to

understand how the project may work differently in different community types, and in

order to compare Jupara's past projects with their current and future directions.

Site Description

Cascata is located in the municipality of Ubaitaba, Bahia. Cascata was an

abandoned cacao plantation that was sold for land reform. Forty families were settled

there in 1998. The land titles were granted not to individuals but to the community

association, although each family was assigned an area of 4-5 hectares of the plantation

to maintain and harvest. In addition, about 180 hectares of Atlantic Forest were

designated as a community forest reserve.

Cascata farmers produce cacao almost exclusively. Most of the land was planted in

cacao already, and little open area was available for planting manioc and other food









crops. Each family harvests cacao from its individual area. Cacao seeds must be

fermented and dried before sale, and this process is done collectively in a communal area,

using infrastructure left behind by the plantation owner. The entire community

landholding is organic certified and the cacao is marketed through the Jupara cooperative.

In order to receive the higher organic price, the cacao must also be top quality, which

depends on correct fermentation and drying, so the community decided to designate a few

community members to complete this process in hopes of a more uniform and higher

quality product.

In comparison to Fortaleza, Lagoa Santa, and other local smallholder communities,

the standard of living in Cascata is quite high. Unlike in the older communities studied,

very few Cascata residents work outside of the community. A few have off-farm income

from retirement pensions. The community is located along a major highway, allowing

for easy access to public transportation, local markets, secondary education and health

services. Because Cascata was established on a former plantation, much of the

infrastructure was already in place, including a dozen workers houses where families are

now living, a large building for meetings and events, a church and school, production

areas for processing cacao, and a large cacao dryer. Additional houses were constructed

to accommodate additional families. Families enjoy well-constructed brick homes,

electricity, running water, modern sanitary facilities, and even a public telephone. All of

the residences are located in the central community area and the cacao plantation areas

surround this central area. In Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa, every family lives on its own

piece of land, and residents are fairly isolated from their neighbors. Cascata's centralized

model greatly facilitates community organization and cooperation.









Methods

Twelve households were randomly selected for household interviews, as described

in Chapter 2. Data was collected on participation in the Jupara program, use of target

agroecological practices, land use patterns, and other socioeconomic conditions that

might affect a family's ability to meet project goals.

As in Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa, a participation score was calculated for each

family and data were entered into linear regression models.

Descriptive statistics were compiled for each of the three communities including a

number of factors, including family characteristics and land use patterns. A MANOVA

analysis was used to assess differences across communities. Tamhane T2 Post-Hoc Test

was used to test the statistical difference between each pair of communities. MANOVA

was selected for its ability to compare multiple dependant variables in three or more

categories while taking into account possible correlations between the dependant

variables.

Results

Participation

Although Cascata entered the project later, participation in Cascata was comparable

to participation in the other two communities (Figure 3-1).

In Cascata, all families participated in the Jupara project (Figure 3-1) and all

maintain organic certification, and are utilizing, at minimum, the organic practices

required for certification. Cacao agroforestry was already established when residents

received their plots, and a community forest reserve sets aside 40% of the community's

total area in natural forest. Because little variation in participation, practices, or land







54


cover existed among families interviewed, linear regression models showed no

significant effect of participation on agricultural practices, farm income, or land cover.


60


50


40 A
A A A
A




) oMembership
0 A
1. o a Coopasb Member
c 100 0
Past Member
-U
0 0 Non-Member
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Community: 1=Fortaleza, 2=Lagoa Santa, 3=Cascata

Figure 3-1. Range of participation scores in Fortaleza, Lagoa Santa, and Cascata.

Therefore, only descriptive statistics are presented here. Table 3-1 presents

household data collected in Fortaleza, Lagoa Santa, and Cascata and allows for

comparison between Cascata and older communities. On average, Cascata residents have

more years of education, fewer off-farm workers, and a larger percentage of income

coming from agriculture than Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa residents. Cascata has a smaller

family landholding size than Fortaleza and a similar size to Lagoa Santa. Including the

community forest reserves, Cascata has more forest and less area in annual crops than the

other two communities.














Table 3-1. Descriptive statistics by groups for three communities. indicates statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between
communities as measured by MANOVA analysis. Statistical relationships are shown between each community, Fortaleza
(F), Lagoa Santa (L) and Cascata (C) as measured by Tamhane T2 Post-Hoc Test.
Fortaleza Lagoa Santa Cascata Statistical Relationship
Mean Std.dev Mean Std.dev. Mean Std.dev. Between Communities


Family size
Total family members living in community
On-farm workers
Off-farm workers*
Children living outside community


6.07
1.85
1.23
3.65


4.19
1.30
1.00
3.19


7.35
2.65
0.86
3.00


5.33
2.06
0.54
2.56


1.87
1.00
0.69
3.60


F=L=C

Average age of all family members
Head of household age


31.76 12.8
54.03 13.3


29.31 10.68
55.60 11.15


32.40 13.32
52.92 15.48


Years of education
Head of household*
Ages 18-30*
Ages 31-50*
Ages 51+*


4.67
10.60
11.45
3.43


Years farming on current property*


20.10 9.09


Family Landholding
Total area* 15.96 1.30


% Agroforestry*
Age of Oldest Agroforestry System
Age of Newest Agroforestry System


39.1%
17.68
6.45


% Natural Forest (includes community reserve)*
Years since most recent deforestation


% Fallow/Forest Regrowth


% Annual Crops*


15.6%
8.80
5.07


29.00 19.03


9.43 7.40


74.6%
21.22
5.91


36.0% 17.9%
20.10 9.09

12.3% 11.5

7.3% 6.5%


20.3%
10.26
4.14


8.0% 15.2%
18.91 16.09

8.4% 10.4%

11.1% 14.4%


5.4% 5.8% 3.0% 3.8%


2.90
5.35
14.20
3.39


5.72 2.90


10.13 4.49

46.1% 12.6%
Unknown
Unknown

40% 0%
Unknown

6.2% 6.8%

1.9% 2.5%

2% 0%


F=LF
F>LF
F>LF
F>LF

F=L>C

F>L=C
FC= F


F>L

F=L>C

% Pasture














Table 3-1. Continued


Total Income in Brazilian Reais
Farm Income
Other Income
% income from farming*


Fortaleza
Mean Std.dev
8700 4617
3775 2290
4925 3689
45.2% 26.3%


Lagoa Santa
Mean Std.dev.
8581 4341
5375 3716
3206 3717
66.6% 30.8%


Cascata
Mean
7330
4919
2413
74.5%


Std.dev.
4021
3545
3535
31.3%


Statistical Relationship
Between Communities



F=L=C>F











Adoption of Agroecological Practices

As in the other two communities, farmers implemented some practices more often


than others. In Cascata, the preferred practices differ slightly (Figure 3-2). Green


manures, homemade liquid organic fertilizer, composting, and contour erosion barriers


were implemented least often, and crop rotation was also implemented less often than in


the other two communities. As in Fortaleza and Cascata, mulching and multicropping are


used by most farmers. All properties in Cascata obtained organic certification as a group,


so 100% of farmers have replaced chemical fertilizers with the commercial organic


fertilizer that Jupara sells, as chemical fertilizers are strictly prohibited. Only one farmer


reports burning his field, and others stated that burning is also prohibited.


80%


60%


40%


20%


0%
Green Manures Homemade Composting Contour Erosion Commerci2
Organic Barriers Organic
Fertilizer Fertilizer

InPE


No Burning


No
Agrochemicals


Crop Rotation


Mulching Multi-cropping


Figure 3-2. Adoption of agroecological practices in Cascata.

Land Use

The entire Cascata settlement meets Jupara's land cover goals of 30% natural forest


cover and 40% agroforestry. Two large community forest reserves encompass 40% of


Mulching Multi-cropping


No
Agrochemicals


No Burning









the community's total area. Most of the other 60% of the settlement was already planted

in cacao agroforestry, although in poor condition. Each family received a parcel already

planted in cacao, and some farmers also have a small area for annual crops, usually where

cacao trees have died of Witches Broom Disease. There is also a small community

pasture area for work animals and some communally owned cattle. Figure 3-3 shows the

distribution of land use in Cascata, including the community managed forest reserve.









6 48%







2%
O Agroforestry U Annual Crops U Pasture D Capoeira U Forest


Figure 3-3. Land Use Distribution in Cascata.

Discussion

Agroforestry and Conservation in Cascata

Jupara considers Cascata to be one of their greatest success stories. This

community is very different from Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa and may not be directly

comparable. In Cascata, all families participate in the Jupara program and sell products

through the Jupara cooperative. One hundred percent of families are organic certified

and as such are required to use only organic fertilizers. All interviewees reported

eliminating chemical fertilizer and using a commercial organic fertilizer, and only one









farmer reported using fire. For this reason, there may not be enough variation in levels of

participation or agricultural practices to show significant results here.

Preferred agricultural practices are slightly different in Cascata than in the other

communities. Fewer farmers reported using crop rotation, probably because this is

usually done at the beginning stages of establishing an agroforestry system, and most

Cascata farmers received already established plots. This can be a challenge in

communities on established estates, as there is little open area in which to plant annual

crops for household consumption. Homemade liquid organic fertilizer was more popular

here than in the other communities, possibly because the community association owns

several cows, so manure is readily available to use in preparing the homemade fertilizer.

A biogas project is underway to compost manure and produce methane gas to power a

cacao dryer, but as of the time of these interviews, farmers were not yet using the

compost produced by that project. Knowing that different types of communities prefer

different agroecological practices, Jupara extensionists can adapt future extension

programs to promote the practices most fitting to each type of community.

In Cascata, two large forest reserves conserve 40% of the settlement's total area in

primary Atlantic Forest. Farmers have access to only as much land as they can use for

agriculture; the forested land is strictly off-limits to agricultural activity. This is perhaps

the best scenario to ensure long-term forest conservation. Forested areas are large and

contiguous, rather than fragmented into smaller family-owned forest reserves as in

Fortaleza. Because the farming system in Cascata is intensive and permanent, and was

already established when farmers took possession of the land, Cascata farmers may feel

less need to clear forests than farmers in other communities. Soil quality is also better in









Cascata than in the other two communities, which allows for more intensive cacao

production on relatively small parcels.

Community members in Cascata have hopes of one day benefiting from their forest

reserve as an ecotourism destination. In addition to the forest reserve, Cascata has

several other unusual resources that might make it a suitable ecotourism site in the future,

including a beautiful waterfall with a large pool suitable for swimming, and a large

community house, originally the plantation owner's home, that might provide suitable

guest rooms, as well as optimal location along a major road with frequent bus service.

Although ecotourism is only an idea now, the presence of these resources may provide an

additional incentive to conserve forests and other natural resources.

Future Directions for Jupara

Jupara's current work focuses mainly on communities like Cascata: new land

reform settlements on former cacao estates. While it is important to recognize the need

for extension services to improve both livelihoods and conservation practices in all rural

communities, regardless of age, location, or production strategy, communities like

Cascata are in many ways the ideal places for Jupara's work, especially from a

conservation perspective. There are several reasons for this.

First, Cascata and communities like it tend to be highly organized. Community

members live close together in a small residential area, rather than in isolated homes on

individual landholdings. This facilitates the participation of most, if not all, community

members, and makes it easy to organize meetings and activities. Some important

management decisions, such as the designation of community reserves and organic

certification of the entire estate, are made collectively rather than individually.









Secondly, the biophysical conditions on abandoned cacao estates tend to be much

more suited for agriculture than those of older land reform settlements. Historically, the

best lands were occupied by wealthy estate owners, and settlers invaded poorer lands.

Many settlements still exist on these lands, and in several cases, agriculture has proven

inviable given the poor soil quality. In Cascata, landowners can produce cacao, a crop

that is demanding in soil nutrients but produces a lucrative product, with a minimum of

fertilizer inputs. Cacao is also advantageous because there is a market for organic cacao.

Finally, by actively participating in the land reform process, Jupara is able to gain

access to these communities before they are settled on the land and begin educating

future farmers before destructive practices are in place. In many cases, new settlers have

little farming experience, and it may be easier to teach agroecological practices to a new

farmer than to change the well-established practices of a veteran.

Also, as facilitators of the land reform process, Jupara extensionists are able to

choose landholdings to target for land reform, and are currently working to choose areas

that have conservation value. In this way, larger remaining patches of Atlantic Forest can

be preserved as community reserves within new settlements.














CHAPTER 4
EFFECTS OF AN NGO EXTENSION PROGRAM ON LAND USE CHANGE ON
SMALL FARM PROPERTIES IN THE ATLANTIC FOREST OF SOUTHERN BAHIA

Introduction

The use of remote sensing technology has become a common method for assessing

land use and land cover change (LULCC) in many areas of the world. Researchers have

used satellite imagery to observe vegetation patterns at a landscape-wide scale, and also

to observe changes over time through analysis of a time series of images. Remote

sensing plays an important role in monitoring tropical deforestation in regions such as the

Brazilian Amazon (McCracken et al. 2002), Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula (Vance &

Geoghegan 2002), and Southeast Asia (Rindfuss et al. 2002).

While remote sensing is a powerful tool, it allows us to examine only the physical,

spatial, and temporal aspects of land cover change. Many researchers have paired remote

sensing studies with on-the-ground data collection, including interviews of local

landowners, in order to better understand the social, economic, and political drivers of

deforestation and other land cover changes. Although interviews may take place at the

level of households or individual landholdings, remote sensing analyses are commonly

broader in scale, encompassing entire regions, watersheds, protected areas and their

buffer zones, or villages. In one example, Sunderlin et al. (2000) used satellite imagery

to observe a nationwide trend in deforestation following an economic crisis, and a survey

of 5000 households in Cameroon to help explain this change, but households were not

linked to a specific location on the landscape.









Although landscape-wide studies are useful for determining broad-scale trends in

land cover change, understanding region-wide habitat availability for a particular species,

assessing the connectivity of landscape elements, or planning future protected areas,

many land use decisions are made at a much finer scale. Especially in developing

countries where small-scale agriculture is common, individual landowners make

decisions about which crops to plant and where, whether or not to convert forest to

agriculture, which trees to cut, how much fertilizer and pesticide to use, and how to

manage water resources. A comprehensive understanding of the forces driving land use

and land cover change requires an understanding of the household-level decision making

process (Rindfuss et al. 2002).

Very few LULCC studies have focused specifically on change at the household

plot level, due in part to methodological difficulties inherent in identifying the precise

location of a small farm plot on a satellite image. Several studies in the Brazilian

Amazon have linked households with specific plots of land (McCracken et al. 2002;

Walsh et al. 2002). These studies have been facilitated by the fact that plots in most

newer Amazonian settlements are of a uniform size and shape, and characterized by a

"fishbone" pattern of deforestation, allowing for easy identification of each landholding

on the satellite image. McCracken et al. (2002) initially used digital property maps

obtained from INCRA, the government agency responsible for delineating new

settlements. They found that these maps were often inaccurate or incomplete, since their

purpose was simply to identify which plots belonged to whom, not to conduct detailed

GIS analyses. They were able to develop a suitable farm property grid for 402









households using a combination of the INCRA maps, GPS points collected in the field,

and mathematical interpolation of GIS layers.

In some study regions, no property maps are available, and properties may be

irregularly shaped or not legally owned by the user. In these cases, researchers have had

to create property maps using GPS points collected in the field, combined with sketch

maps of the property and identification of key landscape features visible on the image.

This method is time and labor intensive. Walsh et al. (2002) employed this method,

along with a base maps of roads, to identify 418 landholdings in the Ecuadorean Amazon.

Vance and Geoghegan (2002) used GPS points and participatory mapping to

outline 188 properties within the ejido systems in Quintana Roo and Campeche, Mexico.

In other regions, landowners reside in one place, while agricultural activities occur

somewhere else. This was the case in northeastern Thailand, where Rindfuss et al.

(2002) selected 310 villages and experimented with various methodologies to link

households to their field plots. This process is even more difficult and labor intensive

when agricultural plots do not contain the dwelling unit.

In each of these studies, researchers interviewed parcel owners and compiled data

on socioeconomic conditions and land use decisions of each family. These data were

then related to land cover data in order to better understand why different families might

make different land use decisions.

This study will employ a combination of these methods to carry out a property-

level study of land use change in Fortaleza, a rural settlement near Una, Brazil, and to

further develop the methodology for such research. As noted by previous researchers,

difficulties in accurately identifying individual properties limit the accuracy of results.









Thirty household interviews were conducted in June and July of 2005, as part of an

evaluation of the Jupara Agroecology Extension Program. Through a partnership with

WWF, Jupara has been working in the area since 1995 to promote organic agroforestry

and forest conservation. Specific program goals included the implementation of

agroecological practices and maintenance of 40% of each landholding in agroforestry and

30% in natural forest cover. Taking into account a large community forest reserve,

individual landholders were expected to maintain 12.5% of their own landholding in a

forest reserve, to maintain 30% of the overall community landscape in forest cover.

Results of the program evaluation interviews indicated that while many participants

have implemented organic agricultural practices, only 42% of participants, and 43% of all

farmers interviewed, have maintained a forest reserve equal to at least 12.5% of their

property.

Interview data offer only a snapshot of one point in time. Many landowners report

that although the area was almost completely forested when the first settlers arrived in the

1970s, extensive deforestation had occurred before the Jupara program began in 1995.

More recent settlers reported significantly more remaining forest cover than those who

had been living in Fortaleza for longer periods of time. Knowing the distribution of land

cover types that landowners report at present, this remote sensing analysis was designed

to assess the extent of forest cover in the community before and after the Jupara project.

Images from 1986, well before the project began, and 2001, the most recent image

available, were analyzed to address the following research questions:

* How has forest cover changed in Fortaleza between 1986 and the present?
* How much forest cover was present before the Jupara program began?
* Is the program asking landowners to conserve something that wasn't present to
begin with?









* Are program participants more likely to allow forest regrowth than non-
participants?
* Is land cover data reported in interviews consistent with land cover data observed
on satellite images?

Study Region

Fortaleza

Fortaleza is a land reform settlement near Una, BA. Fifty families are settled on

1102 hectares, with an average lot size of 16 hectares (INCRA 2006). Approximately

250 hectares are in community areas including a forest reserve and a small community

cacao plantation. Families began settling the area in the mid 1970s. At that time, the

area was completely forested. Most of the settlers in Fortaleza grew up on their parents'

farms or worked on nearby rubber plantations before settling there.

INCRA (Instituto Nacional de Colonizagdo e Reforma Agraria, the government

agency responsible for land reform) officially divided the land and gave titles to these

landholders in 1997. At this time, eight new lots were created along the westernmost

perimeter of the community, in an area that had been a part of the community forest

reserve. By locating families along the perimeter of the reserve, INCRA hoped to avoid

invasion of this land by outsiders. Eight families were moved from their original plot of

land to one of these new, completely forested plots, and other families had a portion of

their original land officially titled to a neighbor.

In most cases, the male head of household received a title to his individual parcel

of land. Farmers in Fortaleza produce mainly rubber and cacao as cash crops, as well as

some manioc, corn, fruit and vegetable crops for consumption.

Of the 50 families settled in Fortaleza, nine are currently members of Jupara and

COOPASB, Jupara's agricultural cooperative. Nine families were formerly members and









dropped out, and the remainder of residents may have participated in some Jupara

training events but never formally joined the cooperative. For the purposes of this

analysis, we compare members, former members, non-members, and families on new

lots. The families on new lots are also non-members but are analyzed separately due to

the more recent process of land cover change on these lots.

The Atlantic Forest of Southern Bahia

Fortaleza is located in the Atlantic Forest Region of Southern Bahia, Brazil, and

has been targeted for conservation efforts due to it's proximity to the Una Biological

Reserve. Figure 4-1 shows the location of the study site and the reserve. The Una

Reserve encompasses about 11,000 hectares of what remains of the Atlantic Forest

ecosystem (Buschbacher in prep.). The Atlantic Forest, which once covered much of the

eastern coast of Brazil as well as parts of Argentina and Paraguay, is one of the world's

most diverse ecosystems, and also one of the most endangered. The first mapping of the

Brazilian Atlantic Forest was undertaken in 1990 with the participation of IBAMA

(Instituto Brasiliero do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renovaveis, or the

Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) and the

Fundacgo SOS Mata Atlantica (SOS Atlantic Forest Foundation), a prominent Brazilian

NGO. According to this project, the Atlantic Forest originally covered 15% of the

Brazilian national territory, and has been reduced to a mere 7% of its original area, or

about 1% of the Brazilian National Territory. The Atlantic Forest is home to 108 million

people, or about 60% of the population of Brazil (Hirota 2003).













Bahia


S ORIGINAL
REMANESCENTE

SIESB 2004 Image, 5121101' -
rea around ~J Reserve-w =

Figure 4-1. Location of study site. The blue box indicates the Southern Bahia region with
the original extent of the Atlantic Forest shown in yellow and remaining forest
in green. The smaller black box indicates the area around Fortaleza and the
Una Reserve. May 2001 Landsat image of the reserve and Foratleza is shown
on the right.

The Atlantic Forest Biome is on the Global 200 list of globally outstanding

ecoregions, and is considered a Biodiversity Hot Spot (Mittermeier et al. 1999). The

region supports over 1600 species of terrestrial vertebrates and 20,000 species of vascular

plants, including more than 6000 endemic plant species and more than 500 endemic

animal species (Mittermeier et al. 1999).

In order to set priorities for conserving what remains of the fragmented Atlantic

Forest, two biodiversity corridors have been designated; the Serra do Mar Corridor,

which extends southwest of Rio de Janeiro through Minas Gerais, Sao Paulo, and Parana

states, and the Corridor Central, in Southern Bahia and Espiritu Santo (Figure 4-2)

(Aguiar et al. 2003). The Una Reserve and Fortaleza fall within the Central Corridor.


!









Within the Central Corridor, researchers have documented extremely high tree diversity

(Thomas et al. 1998), twelve endemic primate species (Pinto 1994) and 50% of the

known endemic bird species of the Atlantic Forest (Aguiar et al. 2003). The Central

Corridor encompasses almost 12 million hectares, and about 12% of its total area is

covered in native forest (Conservation International 2006). The corridor contains at least

40 protected areas, 70% of which are state-owned. The average protected area size in the

region is 93.13 km2 (Aguiar et al. 2003). Financial resources needed to enforce protected

areas and establish new ones are limited, so an emphasis on privately owned protected

areas and community managed ones, like the community reserve in Fortaleza, is essential

for the long-term conservation of the Atlantic Forest.



















http://www.corredores.org.br/?area=c

Figure 4-2. Location of the Central and Serra do Mar Corridors.

The Central Corridor includes the cacao growing region of Southern Bahia.

Currently about 600,000 hectares of Theobroma cacao, a medium-sized understory tree,

are planted in this region (Buschbacher in prep.), many maintain some of the original









forest canopy or are interspersed with patches of natural forest (Alger 1998; Alves 1990;

Buschbacher in prep.). This region's cacao agroforests have generated considerable

interest within the conservation community for their potential to maintain forest-like

landscapes and serve as biological corridors between blocks of fragmented forest (Alves

1990). Researchers in many countries have demonstrated that while agroforestry systems

are no substitute for intact forest, some wildlife species are able to use cacao-based

systems to some extent as a corridor between areas of more suitable habitat, with more

diverse systems providing more suitable habitat than less diverse systems (Alves 1990;

Greenberg 1998; Greenberg et al. 2000; Laurance 2004; Reitsma et al. 2001). Pardini

(2004) carried out such a study on small mammals on fragmented areas of the Una

Biological Reserve. For this reason, conservation programs like the one implemented by

Jupara, targeting cacao producers and producers of other agroforestry crop such as

rubber, cloves, palms, and fruit, are important to maintain connectivity of the region's

remaining forest fragments.

Remote sensing studies in the Atlantic Forest

The presence of extensive agroforestry further complicates remote sensing studies

in this region. In regions such as the Amazon and Mexico's dry tropical forests, land

cover can usually be divided into forested and non-forested, as annual crops or pastures

for livestock are common land uses. Agroforests, on the other hand, can be extremely

difficult to separate from natural forests and forest regrowth, especially in the case of

cabruca systems, in which cacao is planted in the shade of natural forest overstory trees

(Lemos Costa 2000; Saatchi et al. 2001), or very old agroforestry systems. Fortaleza

residents harvest rubber and cacao from agroforestry systems that may be more than









thirty years old, although these are usually not cabruca systems but mixed plantations of

rubber, cacao, and other fruit species.

Only a few remote sensing studies have been carried out in the Atlantic Forest

region. Lemos Costa (2000); Saatchi et al. (2001), and Araujo (1997) all carried out

broad scale classifications of the Southern Bahia region using Landsat Imagery and

NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index). NDVI is a vegetation index

commonly used as a measure of plant biomass. Lemos and Araujo both defined forested

areas, agroforests and open areas by assigning a characteristic range of NDVI values to

each. Use of NDVI alone, however, may be unreliable, because NDVI has been shown

to be ineffective in classifying uneven aged, humid tropical forests where the biomass can

be very high (Sader et al. 1989).

Several other studies have relied on more expensive, higher resolution imagery to

distinguish between similar land cover classes like forests and agroforestry, such as

IKONOS imagery (Guanes Rego & Koch 2003), SIR-C Radar imagery (Saatchi et al.

2001), and CASI imagery, which is similar to an aerial photograph (Olson 1998). Due to

the financial constraints of this study, this approach was not considered.

Methods

Interviews

A total of 30 household interviews were conducted in Fortaleza in June and July of

2005. The fifty existing households were classified as participants, former participants,

or non-participants in the Jupara project. Current members of the Jupara's agricultural

cooperative, Coopasb, were considered participants, past members were former

participants, and non-members were considered non-participants. All of the participants

and former participants were interviewed, and of the remaining non-participants, a









random sample of 10 was selected, for a total of 30 interviews. Interview content

included questions concerning family demographics, agricultural practices, and land

cover distribution, and participation in Jupara training activities.

Participatory Mapping and Training Points

For each household interviewed, the researcher also toured the property with the

landowner to verify information obtained in the interview, and to collect GPS training

points and a brief description of each of the land cover types present on the property for

use in image classification. Farmers reported five land cover types: Forests,

Agroforestry, "Capoeira," which includes forest regrowth and fallowed areas, Annual

Crops, and Pasture. To assist participants in describing their property's land cover

distribution, a participatory mapping activity was carried out in which participants were

asked to draw a simple sketch map of their landholding, including agroforestry systems

and forested areas, areas of annual crops and pastures, roads, waterways, and houses. A

representative sketch is shown in Figure 4-3. GPS points were collected along the

perimeter and covers of these sketches, and at other important landscape features, to

assist in placing the property boundary on the image.

Image Processing

Landsat images from September 11, 1986 and May 23, 2001 were acquired from

the University of Maryland's Global Land Cover Facility (University of Maryland 2006).

Image dates were chosen based on availability of cloud-free imagery, and seasonal

differences in vegetation may influence results somewhat. The most recent Landsat

images (2003-present) are affected by an equipment malfunction and were not used for

this study.






73





;4-1

























Figure 4-3. Property sketch created by a community member.
a I













Bahia). Fortaleza is located in a very rural area, roads are not paved and are not visible'
I / /




", T/ / |






Figure 4-3. Property sketch created by a community member.

Images were subset to a manageable size. The 2001 image was georectified to a

map ofwaterways provided by IESB (Instituto de Estudos Socioambientais do Sul da

Bahia). Fortaleza is located in a very rural area, roads are not paved and are not visible

on the image. The 1986 image was then georectified to the 2001 image. Images were

calibrated to remove differences in haze and light angle between the two image dates. An

NDVI layer and a texture layer were added to the original image, to provide additional

information for image classification.

The most difficult part of a property-level remote sensing study is locating the

properties on the image. INCRA in Salvador provided a digital map of Fortaleza. The









map included only the community outline, roads, and streams; individual property

outlines were not included, and UTM coordinates appeared to be off by a factor of 1000.

Jupara provided a photocopy of another map, also produced by INCRA, which did

include property boundaries. This photocopied map was scanned and georectified in

Erdas Imagine, using points extracted by hand and multiplied by 1000 from the digital

map. The scanned, georectified map was then traced with a mouse to create an

independent vector layer that could be projected on top of the image. This multistep

process created some error in the location of property boundaries, and some GPS points

collected in the field did not fall into the correct property polygons. INCRA maps are not

particularly accurate to begin with, as noted by other researchers (McCracken et al.

2002), since their main purpose is simply to keep records of who owns which lot, not to

conduct scientific research. Accuracy of this analysis also depends on the accuracy of the

IESB map used for image georectification. Additional GPS data from the field could

improve the accuracy of this map. However, the location of several large landscape

features, such as the community forest reserve and a large cleared ranch just to the south

of the community boundary, confirm that the vector layer is in approximately the correct

location.

The vector layer was projected onto the images and images were subset again to

include only Fortaleza. Images were classified using methods of unsupervised

classification (Jensen 2005). Computer-generated classes were identified as Forest,

Agroforestry and Forest Regrowth, Cleared Areas, and Clouds and Shadows, based on

training points collected in the field and general knowledge of the landscape. Farmers

reported five land cover categories, but since some of these are difficult to separate on the









image, images were classified into only three classes, plus clouds and shadows. "Forest"

on the image could include forest and some mature forest regrowth or very old

agroforestry systems. "Agroforestry and Forest Regrowth" were one category for the

purposes of image classification, and include agroforestry and regrowth that farmers

reported as "capoeira." "Cleared Areas" include annual crops, pastures, and some

recently fallowed capoeiras.

Classifications were imported into ArcGIS and separate layers were created for

each land use class for each image date. Clouds and shadows were eliminated from the

analysis. The vector layer was modified so that each landholding was a separate polygon

with its own identification number. Using the zonal statistics tool, the area of Forest,

Agroforestry/Regrowth, and Cleared Areas within each polygon was calculated for the

1986 and 2001 classifications. Percent change in each land cover type between 1986 and

2001 was calculated for each polygon.

Results

Land Use Classifications

Classifications of 1986 and 2001 images show areas of forest, agroforestry or

regrowth, and open areas within property polygons and communal areas (Figures 4-4 and

4-5). Areas in which the land use changed from the 1986 image to the 2001 image are

highlighted in Figure 4-6. Properties were divided into several categories for the

purposes of this analysis. Table 4-1 shows distribution of Forest, Agroforestry (AF), and

Cleared Areas for property owners who participated in the Jupara program, former Jupara

participants, and non-participants. Lots which were not yet in use in 1986 were analyzed

separately and are labeled New Lots. (All of the families on new lots were also non-









participants, but results for non-participants on new lots are not included in results for

non-participants on older lots.) The community reserve was also analyzed separately.


Land Use in Fortaleza, 1986


Legend
0
- Former Participants
Participants
- Non-Participants
- New Lots (Non-Participants)
- Community Areas
Forest
SAgroforestry/Forest Regrowth
Cleared Areas/Annual Crops/Pasture
= | Clouds and Shadows


460 920 1,840 2,760 3,680
m I Mete


Figure 4-4. Land Use Classification for Fortaleza, 1986.


^.














Land Use in Fortaleza, 2001


0 480 920


Legend


1,840 2,760 3,680


- Former Participants
- Participants
- Non-Participants
- New Lots (Non-Participants)
- Community Areas
Forest
Agrforestry/Forest Regrowth
Cleared Areas/Annual Crops/Pasture


Figure 4-5. Land use classification for Fortaleza, 2001


Metels














Land Use Change in Fortaleza, 1986 2001


Legend
- Former Participants
- Participants
- Non-Participants
- New Lots (Non-Participants)
- Community Areas
M Cleared-> Forest
AF/Reg. -> Forest
I I Cleared -> AF/Reg
SForest -> AF/Reg.
SAF/Reg. -> Cleared
M Forest -> Cleared
= | No Change


N



0 460 920


1,840 2,760 3,680


m Metels


Figure 4-6. Area of Land Cover Change in Fortaleza,1986 2001










Table 4-1. Land use change in Fortaleza, 1986-2001.
Forest Forest % Change AF/R AF/R % Change Cleared Cleared % Change
1986 2001 in Forest 1986 2001 in AF/R 1986 2001 in Cleared
Non-Participants 16% 24% 8% 40% 46% 6% 38% 34% -4%
Former Participants 25% 27% 2% 50% 48% -2% 21% 25% 5%
Participants 14% 34% 20% 44% 35% -8% 41% 35% -5%
New Lots 84% 16% -68% 5% 16% 11% 7% 28% 22%
Community Reserve 81% 78% -3% 14% 16% 2% 5% 6% 1%
Total 32% 31% -2% 35% 39% 3% 28% 31% 2%

Figure 4-7 shows the percent change in each cover class for lots owned by

participants, former participants, and non-participants, as well as on new lots and within

the community forest reserve, and for the entire community area. The overall quantity of

these three land use classes remained essentially the same in Fortaleza between 1986 and

2001, but the spatial distribution of forest patches, agroforestry, and cleared areas have

changed. Several new lots have been settled in what was once a forested area, forest

cover has decreased in these areas as well as in the community forest reserve.

Meanwhile, forest cover has increased on older agricultural lots. Forest cover increased

by 20% on lots owned by Jupari participants, compared with a 9% increase on non-

participants' lots, and 2% increase on former participants' lots. In addition, the land

cover maps show that much of the increase in forest cover occurs along two riparian

areas.










Land Use Change in Fortaleza, 1986-2001

30%


10% -

0 N FP P EW RESERVE TOTAL
a -10%
S-10% Forest
El AF/Regrowth

S-30% Open
30%


-50%


-70%

Figure 4-7. Land use change in Fortaleza on properties owned by non-participants (NP),
former participants (FP), and current participants (P) in the Jupara project, as
well as on newer lots and within the community forest reserve.

Comparison with Interview Data

The participants in this study reported a land use distribution similar to the one

observed on the Landsat image. Figure 4-8 shows the average land use distribution

reported by interviewees, and Figure 4-9 shows the community-wide distribution

observed on the 2001 classification. The interview data included additional classes

which are difficult to discern on satellite imagery; forest regrowth and fallows are a

separate category, and open areas are divided into annual crops and pastures.










Land Use in Fortaleza as observed on 2001 Landsat Image


E Agforestry/Regrowth 0 Cleared Areas 0 Forest

Figure 4-8. Distribution of land uses in Fortaleza as measured by classification of 2001
Landsat data.


Land use in Fortaleza as reported by farmers


[ Agroforestry m Annual Crops Pasture m Capoeira Forest

Figure 4-9. Distribution of land uses in Foratleza as reported by farmers interviewed in
2005.









Discussion

Remote Sensing Analysis

This analysis shows that the overall proportions of forest, agroforestry or forest

regrowth, and open areas in Fortaleza were nearly the same in 2001 as in 1986, with

slight increases in agroforestry (3%) and open spaces (2%), and a slight decrease in forest

(-2%). However, analysis of the satellite imagery reveals that the spatial distribution of

forest patches has changed considerably since 1986. In the eastern part of the

community, where settlers have been present longest, and where little forest existed in

1986, we see regeneration of forested areas, especially in two riparian corridors which

run north-south through the community. Areas classified as "forest," then, include not

only the remaining original forest but some areas of forest regrowth. Once the secondary

forest reaches a certain stature, it becomes indistinguishable from mature forest on the

satellite image.

In some areas of the community, riparian zones are marked by a steep decline

toward a small stream, and farmers might find these sloped areas unsuitable for

agriculture. Many interviewees cited the protection of water resources as a main reason

for conserving forest. Most families depend on natural springs along this stream as their

source of drinking water, and several farmers told of incidences in which streams had

dried up after the removal of a forest patch, and reappeared as the forest was allowed to

regenerate.

Alternately, GPS points collected in the field suggest that a few of these areas that

appear to be "forested" are actually mature agroforestry systems, which appeared as

young trees in 1986 but are now large enough to be mistaken for forest in the Landsat

classification. Some farmers reported agroforestry systems more than 30 years old that









included some very large trees, primarily rubber (Hevea brasilensis), shade species

planted with cacao, and a few very large fruit trees including j ackfruit (Artocarpus

heterophyllus) and mango (Mangifera spp. ).

The eight westernmost lots in the community were not yet settled in 1986 and were

still completely or mostly forested. INCRA officially demarcated and titled the entire

community in 1997, and at that time several families were relocated to the perimeter of

this forested area. According to local residents, INCRA reasoned that by locating

families around the perimeter of the community forest reserve, invasion of this land by

non-community members could be prevented. Unfortunately, most of the relocated

families were granted completely forested land, and so had no choice but to deforest it.

Sixty-eight percent of the forest on these lots had disappeared by 2001.

Within the community forest reserve, we also see a 3% decrease in forest cover.

This could be accounted for by the fact that a lot on the edge of the reserve was used to

build a second school in the mid 1990s. A visit to the area does indicate some level of

human disturbance and removal of logs, and some families along the perimeter of the

reserve may be using land actually located within the reserve. Although some

degradation is evident, the community forest reserve is still by far the largest patch of

forest in the community, and still the easiest way to conserve forest in Fortaleza, as no

one person has autonomous decision-making power for this land, and the community has

established an expectation for conservation of the area.

A landowner-by-landowner analysis of the lots in the eastern part of Fortaleza

offers good news for the effectiveness of the Jupara program. Current program

participants appear to be far more likely than non-participants to allow forest regrowth on









their properties (or the development of very old agroforestry systems). Forest cover

increased by 20% on participants' lots, compared to an 8% increase on non-participants'

lots, and a 2% increase on former participants' lots. Participants had the least forest in

1986 (14%) and have the most forest of any group now (34%). Participation in a

conservation program may be only one factor influencing this change. Location of the

lots along steep or riparian areas may also be a factor. Some of the participants were

among the first settlers to arrive in Fortaleza in the 1970s, so the development of very old

agroforestry systems or regeneration of more mature forest patches may be a pattern that

develops only after many years of settlement.

Comparison with Interview Data

By interviewing farmers, we can get a more specific idea of the possible land uses

within each of the three categories observable on the image. Interview data represents

the mean of a sample of 30 farmers, while the image analysis includes all 50 properties in

Fortaleza, the community reserve, and two smaller community areas.

Farmers reported a land use distribution fairly consistent with the distribution

observed through image analysis. Farmers reported slightly more forest and agroforestry

than appeared on the image, and slightly less cleared area. This could be because some

young agroforestry systems or recently fallowed areas appeared as cleared areas on the

image classification, or because cleared areas actually decreased between 2001, when the

image was collected and 2005, when the interviews were conducted. Interview data are

based on a representative sample of 30 households, weighted so that participating and

non-participating households are proportionately represented, while the Landsat

classification generated data for all landholdings; this could also explain slight









discrepancies. Overall, the results were similar, and this serves to confirm both the

accuracy of data reported by farmers and of our Landsat classification.

Jupara Program Goals

At the start of the extension program, Jupara program leaders, along with WWF

partners, set goals for forest conservation in participating communities. In Fortaleza, the

goal was to maintain 30% of the community's total area in natural forest. The

community reserve protects about 20% of the total area. On the remaining 80% of the

land, each farmer would have to conserve 12.5% of his or her own plot, to reach the

overall goal of 30% forest cover. Of the 30 farmers interviewed, 14 of them, or 46%,

report that their property meets this goal, when only original forest cover is considered.

According to the image classification, which includes forest regrowth as well as original

forest cover, 46 of the 50 properties, or 92%, meet this goal. The image analysis used a

broader definition of "forest:" regrowth areas that farmers usually define as "( i,,,,it/"

were included here, and very old agroforestry systems may also be included. Including

both the reserve and forested areas on individual lots, 31% of the community area was

forested in 2001, indicating that Fortaleza does meet Jupara's conservation goal, when

areas of regrowth are taken into consideration.

Areas of regrowth may not provide the same conservation benefits as the original

forest, as regrowth areas are likely to be more fragmented and include a different species

composition, and may or may not provide suitable wildlife habitat. At the same time, it is

important that conservation programs like Jupara set goals that are attainable, in order to

maintain the enthusiasm and participation of local residents. Adopting a broader

definition of forest conservation may make goals more attainable, especially in an already

deforested area like Fortaleza. Lots that were settled in the 1970s included little forest









cover in 1986, so regeneration of forested areas is really the best that conservationists can

hope for in this case. Regrowth areas and very old agroforestry systems can provide

important environmental services, such as the protection of water sources, and can act as

corridors between areas of remaining Atlantic Forest. The tendency of participants to

allow forest regrowth to a greater extent than non-participants indicates that the Jupara

program has succeeded in instilling this conservation ethic in Fortaleza.

Directions for Further Study

The accuracy of this assessment could be improved by returning to the field and

collecting additional GPS points in Fortaleza, especially in areas of forest regrowth. A

random sample of these areas could be visited to determine whether they are in fact areas

of forest regrowth or very old agroforestry, and the age of the regrowth or agroforestry.

Additional fieldwork could also help to more accurately locate properties on the satellite

image. Walking the perimeter of a few representative properties with a GPS might be

one way to accomplish this.

The community forest reserve also merits further research. While forest cover is

increasing outside of the reserve, the remote sensing analysis indicates some degradation

of the reserve itself. Who is using this area? Do users have the permission of the larger

community to use this community resource? Community reserves are one effective way

to set aside some of the larger fragments of remaining Atlantic Forest. The agrarian

reform movement is constantly establishing new communities throughout Southern

Bahia, and many include a community forest reserve. An in-depth study of the

management of these reserves in well-established communities such as Fortaleza might

allow planners to more appropriately select areas for community reserves and create

management plans for the long term-conservation of these reserves.














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS

As with any large project, the Jupara Agroecology Project had its strengths and

weaknesses. The project did have a notable impact on the use of organic agricultural

practices in the three communities studied, as shown in Chapters 2 and 3. The project

also had many qualitative benefits that were not necessarily captured here, including

improving community organizations, developing leaders, strengthening women's

participation in agriculture and community organizations, and improving farmers'

attitudes toward conservation. Almost all of the farmers interviewed, participants and

non-participants alike, spoke very highly of the program and its benefits to the

community. Specific comments from participants included the following:

"I learned to preserve nature, to work in an agroecological system, and to stop
killing insects that could be beneficial." Aloisio, Lagoa Santa


"I learned to speak in an assembly and not be timid. I gained knowledge of both
agriculture and commercialization." -Andre, Lagoa Santa


"I learned to dialogue better with people. If you have a problem, you can discuss it
with others and know that it's not so serious." -Maria, Fortaleza


Interview data indicated that the project may not have consistently met its goals for

forest conservation in Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa. In Cascata, the forest conservation

goal was met through the establishment of a large community reserve. The remote

sensing analysis in Chapter 4 helps present a clearer picture of the dynamics of land use

change in Fortaleza. Although the overall amount of forest cover remained almost









constant between 1986 and 2001, forest cover increased on older family lots and

decreased within the forest reserve area as some parts of the reserve were converted to

family lots after properties were reassigned by INCRA. All of the project participants

were situated on older lots and had little natural forest left to conserve when the project

began in 1995, but we do see a trend in forest regrowth in Fortaleza, and it appears that

project participants are allowing more forest regrowth on their properties than non-

participants.

This research could be strengthened by designing similar remote sensing analyses

for Lagoa Santa and Cascata, and for the regional landscape. Each community has a

distinct land use history, and each could offer an independent and interesting land use and

land cover change study.

The land use data presented here also highlight the importance of collecting

baseline data when a project like this begins, in order to set feasible conservation goals

and more accurately monitor progress toward these goals. Communities are very large,

and some kinds of agroforestry systems and forests in this region may look alike at first

glance. It would be easy for an extensionist attending a community meeting or visiting a

limited number of families to misestimate the distribution of land uses if no rigorous data

collection were carried out. Jupara's original conservation goals, which seem to have

been set somewhat arbitrarily, may not have been very feasible if little forest was left to

conserve in the target communities. Goals might have included the establishment of

forest reserves by allowing forest regrowth, rather than, or in addition to, conserving

existing forests. The participatory mapping activity indicated that many farmers had

never given much thought to the overall landscape of their farms and the spatial









arrangement of land uses. A similar activity at the outset of a conservation program

would allow farmers to conceptualize what is present and plan changes that might be

possible for future years. The use of remote sensing is also an excellent tool for

conservation planning, when this technology is available. Collecting baseline data could

allow Jupara and other conservation organizations to focus their efforts on communities

where conservation goals are most likely to be met. Communities involved in this project

were selected mainly based on their proximity to the Una Reserve, or in some cases, their

longstanding relationship with Jupara and involvement in past Jupara projects.

Jupara also hoped to increase family incomes. Participating families do tend to

have higher agricultural incomes than non-participating ones, but this could be because

wealthier families, or families depending more heavily on agriculture for their income,

tended to participate in the project more often than other families. When fieldwork was

completed in 2005, farmers in Cascata were marketing their cacao collectively through

the Coopasb cooperative and receiving a higher price because the cacao was organic.

Cargill, an international exporter of various agricultural products, was the main buyer of

Coopasb's organic cacao. In 2006, Cargill decided to stop offering a premium price for

organic certified cacao, and this year Cascata farmers sold their organic cacao to local

buyers for the same price as non-certified cacao.

Farmers in Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa did not report an increase in income as a

result of participation in the cooperative. Most did not regularly sell products through the

cooperative. Coopasb has been most active in the marketing of organic cacao, which is

advantageous for cacao communities like Cascata, but less advantageous for communities

with mixed production, like Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa. Perhaps in the future they will