! Perceptions of Power among Family Farming Stakeholders in Mato Grosso, Brazilian Amazon Paula Bak Cely A Field Practicum Report submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of Sustainable Development Practice Degree at the University of Florida, in Gainesville, FL USA April 2020 Chair committee: Claudia Romero PhD Committee member s : Renata Serra Ã PhD and Wendy Lin Bartels PhD
! Dedication and acknowledgments To my mother for showing me the way of life and giving me t he strength to live life. To my sister Laura for being my person, and walking the unexpected paths of life with me. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Coopervila and the 13 associations, cooperatives and groups of family farming for receiving me with open arms and allowing me to get to know each of you. It has been a complete pleasure to know you and be part of this process. To Coopervila for teaching me how wonderful family farming is, and allowing me to learn about your experience, you make the world much better. To the Instituto Centro de Vida thank you for welcoming me in Alta Floresta with open arms, and for making me feel like I was part of the team. Thank you for your patience with my Portuguese that sometimes translated in sign language , for your time, your dedication, and your endless support throughout this process. To Miriam and her pets for receiving me in her house. To Bene, Jesse, and Jackie for sharing the space and time while I was there and showing me how to survive during my ti me in Mato Grosso, I am eternally grateful. To Crush and all the other dogs and cats that were part of my family during those months. I would also like to express my appreciation to my committee: Dr. Wendy Lin Bartels for her support during this process. T o Dr. Renata Serra for her support and guidance during these two years. And to Dr. Claudia Romero, for her endless support, guidance, for her kind words, for always pushing me to be better. Thank you for walking with me on the path of graduate school. I am grateful for being part of your Lab.
! I would also like to acknowledge with gratitude the support and encouragement of Glenn Galloway and Andy Noss in the Master of Sustainable Development Practice (MDP) program. Thank you for the constructive feedback an d endless support. I am grateful for receiving financial support to conduct my field practicum from the Center of Latin American Studies and the MDP program. To the Lab family, Weston, Delano, Hermu, Ange, Raine, and Gangga, it was a pleasure to share the space where we wrote our proposals and reports. I want to acknowledge Colfuturo for giving me the scholarship so I could pursue my graduate program. To La Familia Latina: Jess, Katie, Manuelito, Steph, and the cultural aggregates Oswaldito, Sof and Manu eli t o Family. You made these two years an incredible journey. Gainesville has a family feeling. Thank you for listening, for allowing me to cook arepas and for always being my family. To my grandfather and Lucas for his support in this journey, and being w ith us through all times. Last but not least, I owe my deepest gratitude to my sister Laura, my partner Nicolas, and my dog Tango. Thank you for your endless support, for encouraging me to be better, for giving me the strength needed to leave the known an d enter the master.
! Table of contents Abbreviations ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 1 List of figures & Tables ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 2 Abstract ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 4 1. Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 5 2. Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 9 3. Geographical Conte xt ................................ ................................ ............................... 10 4. Institutional Context ................................ ................................ ................................ . 12 5. Contextual Framework ................................ ................................ ............................. 16 6. Methodolo gy ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 20 7. Methods Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 27 8. Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 28 9. Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 49 10. Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 54 11. Some insights offered to ICV and Coopervila ................................ ....................... 60 12. Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 62 13. Problems, limitations and opportunities ................................ ................................ 69 14. Cross disciplinary Considerations ................................ ................................ ......... 71 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 72 Appendices ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 78
! ! " ! Abbreviations AGAF Ã AssociaÂÂ‹o de Gastronomia de Alta Floresta ANVISA AgÂncia Nacional de VigilÂ‰ncia Sanit Â‡ria CEASA/MT /MT Central de Abastecimento do Estado de Mato Grosso CONAB Companhia Nacional de Abastecimiento Coopernova Cooperativa Agropecuaria Mista Terranova Ltda Coopervila Cooperativa Dos Produtores Hortifrutigranjeiros de ParanaÂ’ta DAP Ã D eclaraÂÂ‹o de AptidÂ‹o ao Pronaf EMBRAPA Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa AgropecuÂ‡ria EMPAER Empresa Mato Grossense de Pesquisa, AssistÂncia e ExtensÂ‹o Rural FAH Floresta Amazonica Hotel / Cristalino ICV Instituto Centro de Vida ICV PC Instituto Centro de Vida Project Coordinators ICV TM Instituto Centro de Vida Team Members IDESAM Instituto de ConservaÂÂ‹o e Desenvolvimento SustentÂ‡vel da AmazÂ™nia IFMT Instituto Federal de EducaÂÂ‹o, CiÂncia e Tecnologia de Mato Grosso IOV Instituto Ouro V erde ISPN Instituto Sociedade, PopulaÂÂ‹o e Natureza MAPA MinistÂŽrio da Agricultura, PecuÂ‡ria e Abastecimiento ONG Ã OrganizaÂÂ‹o NÂ‹o Guvernamental PNAE Ã Programa Nacional da AlimentaÂÂ‹o Escolar PPA Ã Parceiros pela Amazonia REPOAMA Rede de ProduÂÂ‹o OrgÂ‰nica do Amazonia Mato Grossense SEAF Secretaria de Estado de Agricultura Familiar SECEDU SecretarÂ’a de Agricultura, Pecuaria e Aquicultura ParanaÂ’ta SEFAZ Secretaria de Estado de Fazenda SEMAS Secretaria de Estado de Meio Ambiente e Sustentabil idade STR Sindicato de Trabalhadores Rurais USINA Usina Hidroel ÂŽ ctrica Teles Pires UNEMAT Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso VISA VigilÂ‰ncia SanitÂ‡ria
! ! # ! List of figures & Tables Figure 1 :Brazil map showing the different states and frontier. The big yellow state is Mato Gross o, which has frontier with Bolivia, and the Brazilian states of Amazon, ParÂ‡, Tocantins, GoiÂ‡s, Mato Grosso do Sul, and RondÂ™nia as neighbors (Geology, 2019). Figure 2 ParanÂ’ta municipality (PEAF MT, 2019). Figure 3: Value chain of Co opervila that shows the production, transformation and packing, and commercialization of the products (ICV, 2018b). Figure 4: Conceptual Framework, that depicts the relationships among all pillars of my work: sustainable Livelihoods, development as Freedom and Empowerment frameworks (see text for detailed explanation) . Figure 5: Conceptual Framework, adaptation of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework and Kabeer's (2005). Th e yellow lines represent the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework and the green lines represent Kabeer framework. Figure 6: ICV PC stakeholder mapping showing the mapping of actors according to influence in the vertical axis, and interest in the horizontal a xis. Figure 7 : Scores given by Coopervila's participants to the actors in relation to the interest and influence they have for Coopervila 's success . Light yellow represents the influence and the darker yellow th e interest of the actors with respect to Coopervila . Figure 8 : Picture of the map made with the comb ined actors and stakeholders to elaborate the power mapping. ! Figure 9 : Picture of the power towers from the ICV PC, ICV TM, and Coopervila power mapping. Figure 10 : Description of the actor, the three participants, and the score each participant gave to an actor determined by their range of actions and source of power. Each color represents the score of one of the participants Ã as explained in A ppendix 7. Figure 1 1 : Family Farming System Mapping for Paranaita (MT, Brazil). This diagram depicts the range of actors and their relationships along the fruit and vegetables value chain. Red: denotes the national, state, and local governments in Brazil and all t he actions they perform. Yellow: represents the market actors and their actions. Light blue: indicates ICV and their actions. Green: represents Coopervila /Family farmers and their actions. The SWITCH (ON/OFF) represents the possibility of the system not op erating and as such, interactions and actions represented as flows not occurring. The botted lines represent the loss of knowledge, energy, or opportunities when the switch is off. (See text for more details).
! ! $ ! Table 1: Description of objectives in relation with too ls and population Table 2: Major Results of Stakeholder Mapping (Detailed information in Appendix 6 ) Table 3: Actors vs Stakeholders according the ICV PC, ICV TM, and Coopervila Table 4: A ctors identified and the ranking each group of participants assigned to each actor for Interest and Influence, represented as numbers in parentheses in that re spective order (Interest, Influence). If only a 0 a ppears , that means that actor was not identified by that group of participants. ! Table 5 : Type actors , number of chips and type of power according the ICV PC, ICV TM, and Coopervila !
! ! % ! Abstract My research relates to the governance of family farming related institutions in Brazil as a case study focused on the local cooperative Coopervila located in ParanaÂ’ta, Mato Grosso. My goal was to understand the power relationships amo ng actors, identifying those who have important roles in family farming within the framework of the Projeito Redes Socio Produtivas (Socio productive Networks project) of the local NGO Instituto Centro de Vida (ICV). The resulting stakeholder and power ma pping can help Coopervila understand the opportunities that exist in the markets (as institutions that purchase commodities) , the potential direction of future projects, and prospects for improved political participation. Additionally, ICV will have a clea r picture of the internal and external dynamics of existing relationships between the different stakeholders. The analysis identified the main interactions among different actors in the vegetable and fruits value chain of the Cooperative. It also recognize d the power dynamics that dominate the vegetable and fruits value chain, proposing alternatives to address disbalances and enhance the governance of the value chain. Additional information was gathered through semi structured interviews with the head of t he department of ParanaÂ’ta's Family Agricultural Secretary, ParanaÂ’ta's Secretary of Education Nutritionist, and some members of both Coopervila and the ICV TM to support the findings of the stakeholder and power analysis. Activities also included three st akeholder mapping sessions (ICV TM, ICV project managers, and the board of directors of Coopervil a) and further power mapping activities were held with these groups. Results suggest there is a different understanding of the governance structure and percept ions of power among the various stakeholders. Likewise, there is a need to empower cooperatives of family farmers, so they are resilient to political, environmental, economic, and social changes. Keywords: cooperative, Brazil, family farming, governance, power
! ! & ! 1. ! Introduction Family farming has been defined as the "means of organizing agricultural, forestry, fisheries, pastoral and aquaculture production that is managed and operated by a family , and is predominantly reliant on the family labour of bo th women and men . The family and the farm are linked, co evolve and combine economic, environmental, social and cultural functions" (FAO, 2019). The United Nations declared the Decade (2019 2028) of Family Farming, the vision for this plan is "a world wher e diverse, healthy and sustainable food and agricultural systems flourish, where resilient rural and urban communities enjoy a high quality of life in dignity, equity, free from hunger and poverty" . They identified two mechanisms to achieve this, by creati ng policies, programs, regulations, and by protection "family farmer's diversity and expansion of their agency, inclusion and economic capacity" ( FAO : 2019: 13) . Brazil has undergone many changes in rural areas with respect to policies that govern land use. In the sta te of Mato Grosso , family farming has been a practice for many generations and represented a key factor for social and economic development , but has become even more significant lately due to a number of historic changes in agriculture (Rodrigues, 2017). S ince 1990 the state of Mato Grosso started working toward recognizing family farming. Nationwide, 85% of the 5 million agricultural production units are managed through family farming in Brazil according ( http://www.fao.org/family farming/countries/bra/en/ ). To help farmers realize the value of their products and access to credit, the Government created, in 1995 the National Program for Strengthening Family Agriculture (PRONAF), followed in 2004 by the Policy Technical Assistance and Rural Extension
! ! ' ! (ATER), the National Agency for Technical Assistance and Rural Extension (ANATER) and the Food Acquisition (PAA) and School Feeding (PNAE) programs . All these initiatives favored and open ed marke t opportunities (2014). Rodrigues (2017) explains the reason why the utilization of the term of family farming was crucial for the livelihood of the farmers , "First, social movements' brought pressure to change the term "small farmer" which suggested a typ e of prejudice against the value of the farmer in the economy and society. Second, there was the strategy to include "family" in the definition because it explicitly expresses social empathy for a key population involved in food production. And the third f actor was the possibility to establish objective criteria to define this group in order to develop new specific policies for it. Another important point is that this term implies identity and livelihood, and it does not reduce the group into economic logic as "small proprieties" does. Once officially identified as family farmers, they began to be understood as a diverse social category, which performs an important role in the process of development" (Rodrigues, 2017: 25). Thus, the notion of family farming helps us to understand the recognized status that farmers have in public policies and the role they play in the rural areas of the country. As Rodriguez mentioned, family farming entails a specific type of livelihood s , and these are built on an underlying set of capabilities, which allows family farms to have access to food, income and assets (Chambers and Conway, 1991). A livelihood becomes sustainable when it maintains assets on which a community depends , and which contribute to resilience to shocks and instability. Governance is a crucial concept for understanding the sustainability and resilience of family farming institutions . In this report , governance is defined as "rules of behavior, especially in organizations. It is not only about our politics an d government, but also about
! ! ( ! major organizations that are key actors in sustainable development, including our private corporations. Good governance encompasses both the public sector and the private sector, and especially the large multinational corporati ons in the private sector." (Sachs, 910: 2015) . This definition ties the concept of governance with sovereignty, defining the last one as the recognition of the other, the power and autonomy it has in relation to others, "sovereignty is more than anything else a matter or legitimacy. And in the modern world system, the legitimacy of sovereignty requires reciprocal recognition" (Wallerstein, 1930: 44) . In this context , governance is the process that defines the power component of decision making and sovereig nty: the who and the how. The purpose of this research practicum was to contribute to a n agricultural value chain project in the Brazilian Amazon by performing stakeholder and power analys e s with the local cooperative Coopervila , made up of rural agricult ural producers. This case study uses participatory methods with Coopervila and other groups in the value chain to develop a deeper understanding of the power relationships and dynamics among different stakeholders. The host institution for the project was a local non governmental organization (NGO), Instituto Centro de Vida (ICV), and the field practicum was developed within its on going value chain project of Projeito Redes Socio Produtivas ( PRSP, Socio Productive Networks project , started in 2018 ) in the state of Mato Grosso. Due to limited time in the field and resources, the practicum focused only on one of the cooperatives among th e 1 4 that participate in the PRSP . Coopervila produces vegetables and fruits for local markets (in this thesis, markets are institutions that purchase commodities from the cooperatives) . However,
! ! ) ! the practicum incorporated also the knowledge and opinions of other associations /cooperatives that are part of the project and are also based in the region. Coopervila 's operations a re based in the municipality of ParanaÂ’ta on the north portion of Mato Grosso . T his cooperative was chosen to be the case study since they are one of the oldest family famers organizations with which ICV works, and the president has been perceived to set a n example for many other family farmers organizations around the region. Before going further, so me essential conceptual considerations must be made . First, the concept of power can be disaggregated based on which dimensions it addresses. As such, there a re the concepts of: power over Ã as the control or domination from one actor over another ; power with collective agency ; power within Ã an awareness of confidence ; and power to Ã being able to act (Hillenbrand, 2015). Second, the manifestations of powe r can be invisible or visible (Hillenbrand, 2015). Third, they are different sources of power: knowledge, resources, decision making , and social actors and stakeholders can have ownership or control over it (Doss, 2011). Fourth, empowerment has three main components: agency, resources, and achievements (Kabeer, 2005).
! ! * ! 2. ! Objectives General Objective The main goal of my field practicum was to enhance understanding of the power relationships and dynamics among different stakeholders along the fruit and vegetables value chain of Coopervila in ParanaÂ’ta, Mato Grosso. I conducted a power analysis of this specific value chain, to help Coopervila better understand market opportunities and measures that might be taken to increase the power of the association w ithin the value chain, while enhancing relationships among multiple public and private stakeholders. Additionally, this information would inform ICV Team Members (ICV TM) on governance issues related to the Cooperative, so they could better target their wo rk in the region. Specific Objectives 1. ! Identify the actors and stakeholders that play a role in the fruit and vegetable value chain of Coopervila 2. ! Characterize the relationships that exist among the actors and stakeholders that participate in the Coopervila value chain 3. ! Shed light on the power dynamics that underlie the Cooperative's value chain 4. ! Propose potential alternatives to address the unequal power dynamics and enhance the governance of the Coopervila value chain 5. ! Share data collected for the report with ICV so they could better target the design of their work in the region , and share the information with Coopervila so they can use these outcomes to advance their goals in the value chain.
! ! "+ ! 3. ! Geographical Context Mato Grosso Mato Grosso is the third largest state of Brazil covering 903,000 km 2 of the national territory ( Figure 1). It has a population density of 3.36 inhabitants/km 2 (Mato Grosso, 2019) . With 141 municipalities, Mato Grosso is part of the Legal Amazon and has three biomes: wetlands, savanna, and Amazon forest. The state has a history of agricultural colonies since the 1940s. In the 1980s, a robust private colonization movement began in Mato Grosso. These two historical moments have led to a high level of immigration into the region and land se ttlement (Rodrigues, 2017). The current inhabitants of Mato Grosso are ethnically diverse. Groups include indigenous people, Afro descendants, as well as Spanish and Portuguese descendants. Mato Grosso is recognized as an agricultural state with both larg e landowners and small family farms. Changes in land and agricultural policies began since the 1960s. Since that time, organizations of farmers have become a priority for the State, which has created programs, plans and public policies to encourage and pro tect family farmers (Rodrigues, 2017). My specific study site was in the municipality of Paranaita (Figure 2).
! ! "" ! ParanaÂ’ta The formation of the municipality started in the 1970s when the colonizer Ariosto da Riva arrived to this land and started building th e first houses and roads. In 1979 AntÂ™nio Campanharo built the first house, and that same year, the town was founded after becoming independent from Alta Floresta (Prefeitura Municipal ParanaÂ’ta, 2019). In 1986 the territory around the city was granted mun icipality status of the state of Mato Grosso. Since the beginning, ParanaÂ’ta was an agriculture municipality. In the 1990s, there was development of other sectors of the economy like the timber and livestock, the latter for meat and milk. This municipality has a total area of 4.830.143 km 2 that is about 0.5 % of the state of Mato Grosso about 0.06% of the country ; Figure 2 ). For 2010 it had an estimated population of 10.690 inhabitants ( Prefeitura Municipal ParanaÂ’ta, 2019).
! ! "# ! 4. ! Institutional Context Institut o Centro de Vida Instituto Centro de Vida (ICV), founded in 1991, is an NGO based in Mato Grosso, Brazil. The organization works on the promotion of sustainable use of natural resources with a focus on social equity and justice. Main activities are develop ed with communities across the state of Mato Grosso in partnership with other actors in the region, such as farmer cooperatives, to develop solutions for sustainable use of the local resources, including land management. They implement different initiative s regarding transparency of funding resources and actions, economic incentives for family farmers, promotion of sustainable small urban centers and cities, rural community development, and strengthening of socio environmental networks, among others (ICV, 2 018a). The focus of the project Redes Socio Produtivas is to support the associations, cooperatives, and groups that have been working for some time as legal organization s to improve the production and marketing of the commodities they produce. The project 's goal is to build capacity among the members of the cooperatives and associations to increase collective knowledge and their exposure to experiences that serve as the basis for future dialogue and alliances among the different stakeholders that participa te in the production and governance of the value chains. ICV also seeks to teach the local community to value the local, sustainable, family farming practices, and to create awareness of the role that consumers play in the development of sustainable local farming. For this Redes Socio Produtivas project, ICV carried out in 2018 a Value Chain Analysis of each commodity (six commodities in total) for the 14 associations, cooperatives, and groups . This assessment identified some gaps with respect to governanc e in all of the value
! ! "$ ! chains , lack of organization and management in the cooperatives/groups/associations, and farmer unaware ness of the legal processes to become an official organization, among others . One gap was related directly with governance within t he value chain, across most of the associations, cooperatives, and groups. More specifically as it pertained to governance , it became evident that members of the family farming organizations lacked basic knowledge of the roles they had inside the associat ion. As a consequence, they were unable to access some business opportunities in the value chain. The two explanations offered for this gap related on the one hand with the lack of knowledge among the members of the associations/cooperatives of the roles e ach person should have in the organization; the second reason involves the lack of recognition, from the members of the cooperatives and associations, of the different relationships and dynamics of power that exist among the actors and stakeholders. Coope rvila Cooperativa Dos Produtores Hortifrutigranjeiros de ParanaÂ’ta , ParanaÂ’ta (Cooperative of Vegetable and Fruit Producers) Vegetable and fruit ( cantaloupe , onion, tomato, lettuce, carrots, among others ) production are common activities in every municip ality in the state of Mato Grosso . I n ParanaÂ’ta's municipality specifically , it is the principal productive system . In spite of its importance, the state of Mato Grosso imports 79% of the vegetables and fruits it consumes (ICV, 2018b ). In 2012, 20 farmers decided to work together and created Coopervila Cooperativa Dos Produtores Hortifrutigranjeiros de ParanaÂ’ta . Up t o this date, each farmer has their own plot of land where they harvest fruits and vegetables . These are sold to Coopervila , which in turn se lls them to the markets or to interested actors. The political status of the cooperative allows the members to buy seeds and supplies at a lower cost from local
! ! "% ! suppliers and it also provides them expanded market opportunities. However, since its establish ment, the Cooperative has not added any new members and actual membership is 15 farmers. Over time, there are fewer farmers with a plot of land for crop production , some farmers have had to sell their land because they did not have enough resources to main tain it, or they had a bad cropping season. Also, ParanaÂ’ta does not have many small holders Ã that could potentially join Coopervila , there is a large amount of land that belong s to other large holder farmers who grow soy and corn. Since the Cooperative began operations, its members have been working to improve the quality of the products they harvest. Currently, Coopervila produces passion fruit, tomato, cabbage, peppers, green corn, watermelon, lettuce, melon, okra, cucumber, pumpkin, and bananas. They are also working towards becoming organic certified by REPOAMA ( Rede de ProduÂÂ‹o OrgÂ‰nica do Amazonia Mato Grossense ). The vast majority of the products are sold directly by the Cooperative and transported by an external company JM Transportation, to lo cal markets in ParanaÂ’ta and Alta Floresta. A small fraction of the production remains for self consumption. The Cooperative has faced challenges for the commercialization of products in other municipalities due to difficulties associated with the transpor tation of raw products without refrigeration. The principal buyers are local supermarkets including: Supermercado Del Moro, Supermercado Kinfuku, Mercado Triunfo, Escolas Municipais e Escolas Estaduais do MunicÂ’pio, Atacado Machado (Sinop) and Coopernova ( Terra Nova do Norte). The functioning of Coopervila 's production and market chain was laid out in a project document by ICV (Figure 3; ICV, 2018b ). There are three main steps: production, transformation and packing, and commercialization. In the production stage, Coopervila
! ! "& ! buys agricultural supplies (such as pesticide, seeds, fertilizer, etc.) from Casa do Agricultor, Casa da Semente, Casa du Adubo, and AgroMotor . These supplies are used by Coopervila 's members to produce vegetables and fruits. During the second stage Transformation and Packing , which takes place in Coopervila' s office in Paranaita , producers clean the products and pack them for buyers . And in the final step of Commercialization, there are some private drivers or even the members themselv es who distribute produce to Super Mercados Del Moro, Mercado Triunfo, Kinfuku, Coopernova, Machado and other individual sales in the municipality. In the following sections this document will present more information in relation to Coopervila , ICV, and f amily farming. Figure 3 : Value chain of Coopervila that shows the production, transformation and packing, and commercialization of the products (ICV, 2018b).
! ! "' ! 5. ! Contextual Framework This practicum focuses on understanding relationships and power dynamics that exist among actors and stakeholders in the value chain of Coopervila , to enhance market opportunities. I laid out a conceptual framework to specify concepts critical to the analysis of the information collected. Th is conceptual framework encompasses a combination of different frameworks useful to examine governance in the context of family agriculture . As such, it is a hybrid from adaptations of the sustainable livelihood framework from DFID (2001), Kabeer's (2005) construction of empowerment , and the concept of d evelopment as freedom from Sen (2009) (Figure 4 ). Figure 4: Conceptual Framework, that depicts the relationships among all pillars of my work: sustainable Livelihoods, development as Freedom and Empowerment frameworks (see text for detailed explanation) First, the sustainable livelihoods framework "is primarily (Ã‰) for analyzing causes of poverty, peoples' access to resources and their diverse livelihoods activities, and the relationship between relevant factors at micro, intermediate, and m acro levels. It is also a framework for assessing and prioritizing interventions. (Ã‰) A second key feature of the
! ! "( ! sustainable livelihoods' framework is that it recognizes people themselves , whether poor or not, as actors with assets and capabilities who ac t in pursuit of their own livelihood goals" (Adato & Meinzen Dick, 2002: 5). The farmers have livelihood assets ; these can be human, social, physical, financial, and natural capitals. These livelihoods are vulnerable due to inevitable shocks that act on th e system , which can be environmental, political, economic, etc. These shocks can jeopardize the capacity farmers have to accomplish their objectives and ultimately, their livelihoods. The assets are influenced by the policies , institutions , processes , and historical facts tha t contextualize the conditions and locales of where the farmers operate. Assets will influence the realization and put in place of livelihood strategies to achieve the livelihood outcomes, which are linked to the development outcomes o f Sen (2009). This specific framework encourages the researcher and/ or practitioner to think that different assets have interactions (that is , synergies and tradeoffs), and various actors may intervene in shaping these relationships in t he context of sust ainable livelihoods (Figure 5) . Figure 5 : Conceptual Framework, adaptation of the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework and Kabeer's (2005) from the perspective of Family Farming . The yellow lines represent the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework and the green lines represent Kabeer 's framework.
! ! ") ! The second part of the framework corresponds to Kabeer's conceptualization of empowerment as categories for a contextual framework (Kabeer 2005). This author defines empowerment as a person or group with the " ability t o make choices " (2005, 13) but who has been denied the possibility of making these choices, a condition that can change in a given moment. Kabeer states that empowerment results from the combination of three dimensions : agency, resources, and achievements . For her , agency represents the processes by which choices are made and put into effect. It is hence, central to the concept of empowerment. Resources are the medium through which agency is exercised; and achievements refers to the outcomes of agency" (Ka beer, 2005: 14). In this project, Kabeer's conceptualization of empowerment is necessary to understand that family farmers may or may not be able to access livelihood assets . While they may still have, in theory ( de jure ), the ability to make choices rega rding their land, harvest, and commercialization, this ability may be however precluded through politics and market changes ( de facto) . Thus, the three dimensions of agency, resources, and achievements allow an analytical framework to question whom, doing what, and achieving what (that is, the outcomes of stakeholders' actions ); by diminishing actors' agency and decreasing their access to resources, there are direct limit ations to their achievements. Family Farming involves the interaction and action on l iv elihood a ssets that are influence d by the vulnerability context . The v ulnerability co ntext is also influence d by the p olicies, institutions, process es , and historical facts . O n the other side, f amily f arming (or a family farmer) has an instrumental agency (the ability to act , ownership of land and assets, and control over decisions ) and collective agency (group membership) (IFPRI, 2020) ; t his agency requires resources (the livelihood assets ) to achieve livelihood and
! ! "* ! development outcomes . The agency is infl uence d by the polic i es , institutions and processes. The next section explains the methods and is followed by the results section that presents main outcomes in light of the conceptual framework. Afterward, the analysis and discussion for the results are p resented, and finally recommendations for ICV and Coopervila follow, with some final thoughts.
! ! #+ ! 6. ! Methodology To gather the data for the research practicum , a series of qualitative methods were used, such as participatory mapping Ã a stakeholder m apping and a power mapping done with three defined groups, semi structured interviews Ã with members of ICV, members of Coopervila , and public institutions personnel, participant observation, ethnographic observation, and casual conversations. From this s ection on in the text there is going to be the use of the following acronyms ICV PC (Instituto Centro de Vida Project Coordinators) and ICV TM (Instituto Centro de Vida Team Members). General Objective Specific Objective Methods Number Participants To en hance understanding of the power relationships and dynamics among different stakeholders along the vegetables and fruit value chain of Coopervila in ParanaÂ’ta, Mato Grosso. Identify the actors and stakeholders that play a role in the fruit and vegetable v alue chain of Coopervila Stakeholder Mapping 3 participatory mappings 7 semi structured interviews ICV PC , ICV TM , Coopervila Secondary Data Literature Review Interviews Characterize the relationships that exist among the actors and stakeholders that participate in Coopervila value chain Stakeholder Mapping Power Mapping 3 participatory mappings ICV PC , ICV TM , Coopervila Secondary Data Literature Review Intervie w s Shed light on the power dynamics that underlie Cooper vilas 's value c hain Propose potential alternatives to address the power dynamics and enhance the governance of the Coopervila 's value chain Power Mapping
! ! #" ! Share information with ICV so they could better target the design of their work in the region. Participant obs ervation and ethnographic observation where performed during the total practicum. Table 1: Description of objectives in relation with tools and population Field work took place for 12 weeks during the months of May Ã August 2019. During that time, I was ba sed in Alta Floresta where ICV's office is based . Table 1 illustrates the objectives in relation with the methods and the participants . During field work I joined activities that the organization developed in Alta Floresta, and also carried out other activ ities in a number of farms that are part of the 14 farmers ' organizations in the municipalities of Colniza, CotriguaÂu, Nova Bande i rantes, and Monte Verde. At least once a week, Luan (ICVs team member responsible for Coopervila' s progress) and I went to vi sit Coopervila as part of his job, and also to carry out participatory mapping or interviews. I visited four of the five farms of the members of Coopervila ' s board of directors. I utilized seven participatory tools during my research. Taken together, they generate a comprehensive stakeholder power analysis, the main goal of the practicum. The tools employed were: 6.1. ! Participant Observation This activity was carried out throughout fieldwork in different settings. It included my participation in meetings with the Technical Team of ICV, field visits to farmers with the Team, involvement in meetings with networks/organizations affiliated with ICV, and taking part in an array of other different activities (for example, Dias de Campo and Gastronomic Festival ). This type of observation gave me insights into how the team worked, the
! ! ## ! activities they carried out with the cooperatives and associations, and in general, helped me gain acceptance and credibility with the team and the farmers through direct immersion. 6.2. ! Semi structured Interviews After having completed two weeks in Alta Floresta , I designed and carried out six semi structured interviews. These were conducted with one member of ICV's team, three members of Coopervila , and with two workers from two Secretaries ( Secretaria de EducaÂÂ‹o and SecretarÂ’a de Agricultura ) of the local government of ParanaÂ’ta. Interviews were structured with guiding questions, but specific questions posed to each respondent underwent appropriate modifications based on the evolution of the interview and responses provided. In total, I interviewed two women (30 to 40 years old) and four men (two 16 years old and the other two between 30 and 40 years old). Criteria for selection of interviewees were the following: for ICV, people who had been working with Coopervila ; for Coopervila , members of its board of directors who were well informed about the state of the cooperative; for governmental entities: people recognized as "most" important , as information derived from participatory mapping (see #6 below) . The two young men and the woman who chose to remain anonymous , were also selected to gain a different perspective on Coopervila from those of the board of directors. 6.3. ! Informal Conversations and other interactions I had opportunities during fie ldwork to interact and have informal conversations with other members of ICV, family farmers from other cooperatives, associations, and groups. These conversations were not recorded but I kept notes in my field journa l.
! ! #$ ! 6.4. ! Secondary Data Ã Literature Review I embarked on a literature review consulting an array of different sources during the first semester of 2019 . This process was concentrated in two different steps of the research: before I traveled to Alta Floresta and while I was there. Initially, I found relevant literature in book chapters, articles and official documents in the UF library and research portals. Additionally, ICV provided some documents related to the specific project on which I worked. The second step began once I arrived to Alta Flores ta and ICV granted me access to their institutional library. In this way I could access documents that had not been available online. I reviewed institutional documents of ICV and other NGOÂ«s that work in the region, and revised public policies and laws at the municipal, state, and national levels related to family farming. This information was very important because it guided and supported the design and implementation of other methods. This new knowledge gained increased my ability to explore people's per ceptions, knowledge, beliefs, and observe their behaviors and reactions in an insightful way. At that time, I also conducted additional research t o include documents in the policy realm. The literature review opened an important window into efforts made by a range of actors to strengthen family farming. 6.5. ! Stakeholder Mapping I facilitated the development of three stakeholder mapping activitie s following the same approach with all groups. The three groups included member of ICV PC (two people) and ICV TM (sev en people), and Coopervila (five people). The groups were consulted separately to understand differences in perceptions and positioning of the stakeholders and the relationships that existed among them. Stakeholder mapping activities were carried out befor e the power mapping exercise (see #6 below) , so participants could identify first the
! ! #% ! existing stakeholders and relationships, and then use that information as an input into the second participatory mapping activity. The workshops were designed following the methods proposed by Lelea et al (2014) as described below. Participants were initially asked to write down on paper in any color and size the names of the different stakeholders that had any type of relationship with Coopervila . After that, they had to explain how this stakeholder engaged with Coopervila and draw a connection between them. Next, they had to define whether there were any connections between the stakeholder in discussion with other stakeholders, and if so, they were asked to draw that con nection and characterize it as well. The second part involved development of a two by two matrix indicating the influence and interest of each actor in relation to Coopervila . The horizontal axis represented the interest an actor had over Coopervila and th e vertical axis represented the influence that actor had over Coopervila (Figure 3 ). Using this format, participants had to define to what location on the interest matrix each stakeholder belonged. This activity was carried out during a two hour workshop. It included discussions among participants regarding how, which, why, when this actor existed, his/ her relationships, interests, and influence.
! ! #& ! Figure 6 : ICV PC stakeholder mapping example showing the mapping of actors according to influence in the ve rtical axis, and interest in the horizontal axis. 6.6. ! Power Mapping The power mapping was conducted separately with the groups. The workshops were designed as follows , adapted from Schiffer (2007): Participants used the previously elaborated stakeholder map. I distributed color figures and plastic poker chips. On each actor a color figure was placed. Next, I requested they place poker chips beneath the color figures, with no limit to the number of chips they could place . The higher the resulting tower, the hig her the power that actor had in relation to family farming and Coopervila . Finally, participants had to characterize the range of actions each actor performed, selecting from four actions: decision making, financing, monitoring and auditing, and advising. They had to state on which actions each actor participated ; one actor could perform different actions. This activity was developed through a two hour and a half
! ! #' ! workshop, including discussions among participants regarding power, actors, and relationships. 6.7. ! Surveys and Ethnographic Observation During the Gastronomic Festival in Alta Floresta, I administered 30 surveys to gather information regarding knowledge and perceptions of family farming. I relied on ethnographic observation and informal conversations as a complement to the surveys.
! ! #( ! 7. ! Methods Analysis This section provides a brief explanation of information analysis for each method. Semi structured interviews: A thematic analysis of the data was done . Stakeholder Mapping: The analysis was don e based on the tool developed by Lelea et al. (2014) , considering the key concepts of interest and influence among the actors as a quantitative variable. A comparison of quantitative data was made to discriminate between actors (lower scores) and stakehold ers (higher scores). Power Mapping: The analysis was done based on the tool developed by Schiffer (2007) to disaggregate responses into types of power (i.e., power over , power with , power within , and power t o ). Participant observation and ethnographic ob servation: During the fieldwork, this information was recorded in a field diary that was reviewed under the lens of power, livelihoods, and development.
! ! #) ! 8. ! Results This section describes th e processes of stakeholder and power mapping . It is followed by an analysis of the information provided by the participants in light of the conceptual framework. The information is divided by participant group (ICV PC, ICV TM, and Coopervila ) . Each stakeholder mapping is divided according to the participant group wh ere it was generated ( ICV PC , ICV TM , and Coopervila ). The ranking is given to the actors and stakeholders given by each participant group. On the power mapping , the results are presented in relation to the height of the po w er tower each participant group gave to the actors. 8.1. ! Stakeholder Mapping T able 2 lists the organizations/ individuals identified as actors by the ICV PC , ICV TM, and Coopervila through the stakeholder mapping. I t includes the name, type (public, private, organization, cooperative, indivi dual, etc.), and a brief explanation of the major results. For more detailed information, please see Appendix .
! ! "# ! Actor Type Major Results AGAF Private ICV PC: Currently, the Cooperative does not have enough production to sell to any other market. However , Coopervila keeps healthy relationships with their former clients for future opportunities. Bancos Private ICV TM: the relationship with the Bancos is indirect because they play a role in the management of money and financial transactions, including deci sion making power over financial opportunities. The relationship with Fornecedores is intermittent, active only when Coopervila needs to buy supplies. CONAB Public ICV TM: Coopervila does have a direct but intermittent relationship with CONAB as it buys fruits and vegetables when they do not produce the amount they need to cover the demand from the Escola. Conexsus/ PAA Private partner ICV PC: indirect and 'one way' relationship with Coopervila. Consumidor Final Individuals ICV TM: Their rationale is th at the Consumidor Final can, through their preferences, impact the production and consumption of the produce Coopervila harvests. Coopernova Cooperative ICV PC: Coopernova was a former client of Coopervila , and is a source of supplies. Coopervila: Cooper nova is the cooperative that sells supplies to other cooperatives as does Coopervila . They only have contact when required to provide seeds and/or other supplies for members of Coopervila . Coopervila: The prior relationships with the markets (Delbianqui, C oopernova) have been put on hold at the moment due to their contract supply of food and vegetables to local schools (the Escola) under the PNAE. As a consequence, they do not have enough production for the demand of all their markets. Contador Private ICV TM: they have a direct relationship; he is the one who works with the cooperative on the financial aspects of cooperative functioning. EMBRAPA Public ICV TM: Coopervila does not have a direct relationship. They are related due to national programs, fami ly farmers' needs, and overall Brazilian laws indirectly. Coopervila: Coopervila does not have a relationship with them, however, they expect communication to improve, hopefully leading to partnerships with the universitties. Farmers' plots have served as field work sites for some students, but that is the extent of their relationship. EMPAER Public ICV TM: they have direct contact as both Coopervila and the ICV TM are working on the DeclaraÂÂ‹o de AptidÂ‹o ao Pronaf DAP, an important document for family farming in Brazil, and EMPAER is the public institution in charge. FAH Private ICV PC: Currently, the Cooperative does not have enough production to sell to any other market. However, Coopervila keeps healthy relationships with their former clients for fu ture opportunities.
! ! $% ! Familias agricultoras Individual ICV TM: Agricultoras are the main reason why Coopervila and other farmers organizations exist, they are the key actors in this project. Coopervila: as the core actor and the reason why they exist. Forn ecedor e? as Private ICV TM: the relationship with the Bancos is indirect because they play a role in the management of money and financial transactions, including decision making power over financial opportunities.The relationship with Fornecedores is inter mittent, active only when Coopervila needs to buy supplies. Governo Estadual Public ICV TM: has policies and programs in place, and Coopervila has to work within those policies and programs. Governo Federal Public ICV TM: has policies and programs in pl ace, and Coopervila has to work within those policies and programs. ICV NGO ICV PC: They work with Coopervila in different projects. ICV TM: ICV sustain a relationship with Coopervila through the the project Redes Socio Productivas, prividing training, i nformation, and they are the intermediaries when the cooperative needs to purchase supplies. Coopervila : They used the word fundamental to characterize the importance of the relationship with ICV during the development of the cooperative. IDESAM Public ICV PC: are working on similar topics, but they do not collaborate on projects . IFMT Public Coopervila: Coopervila does not have a relationship with them, however, they expect communication to improve, hopefully leading to partnerships with the universit ties. IOV NGO ICV PC: are working on similar topics, but they do not collaborate on projects. ISPN NGO ICV TM : ICV does not have a strong relationship with the other NGOs: looking for partnerships with other NGOs that work in the same area and same or similar topics could enhance the activities and the impact all the NGOs have by working together. Mercados Private ICV TM: They said that they did not want to name specifics Mercados because this situation has been changing over time. Prefeitura ParanaÂ’ ta Public ICV PC: have a direct and two way relationship with Coopervila . These institutions chose them as one of the family farmers cooperatives that will provide 80% of the fruits and vegetables the local schools of ParanaÂ’ta consume. ICV TM: has a rela tionship with Coopervil a due to the PNAE that buys the produce from the Cooperative to feed the students from the local schools. Coopervila : they associate closely through PNAE and other public programs carried out with the local government. It has streng thened because of the PNAE, but they have in mind that if that public policy changes, the relationship changes too. Receita Federal Public ICV TM: Coopervila does not have a direct relationship. They are related due to national programs, family farmers' needs, and overall Brazilian laws indirectly. REPOAMA Network ICV PC: The relationship between REPOAMA and Coopervila is new, the cooperative itself is part of the director boards and some farms are in transition to organic farming and hopefully get cert ified by REPOAMA . ICV TM : they explained that the relationship between Coopervila and REPOAMA was direct.
! ! $& ! SEAF Public ICV PC : ha s a direct and two way relationship with Coopervila . These institutions chose them as one of the family farmers cooperatives t hat will provide 80% of the fruits and vegetables the local schools of ParanaÂ’ta consume. ICV TM: has a relationship with Coopervil a due to the PNAE that buys the produce from the Cooperative to feed the students from the local schools. Secretaria de Edu caÂÂ‹o and Escola Public ICV TM: has a relationship with Coopervil a due to the PNAE that buys the produce from the Cooperative to feed the students from the local schools. Coopervila : they associate closely through PNAE and other public programs carried ou t with the local government. It has strengthened because of the PNAE, but they have in mind that if that public policy changes, the relationship changes t oo. SEFAZ Public ICV TM: they have a relationship through the accountant because SEFAZ does audit ing and taxes. Supermercados Machado Private ICV PC: Currently, the Cooperative does not have enough production to sell to any other market. However, Coopervila keeps healthy relationships with their former clients for future opportunities. STR Private I CV TM: Coopervila does not have a direct relationship. They are related due to national programs, family farmers' needs, and overall Brazilian laws indirectly. UNEMAT Public Coopervila : Coopervila does not have a relationship with them, however, they ex pect communication to improve, hopefully leading to partnerships with the universitties. USINA Private Coopervila : They divide this relationship into two stages. The first one relates with the first USINA stage, when they started the construction of the hydroelectric and part of the project, and they developed and worked with the people of ParanaÂ’ta to create better roads, cooperatives, and associations of farmers, schools, parks, etc. After this stage was over, the second USINA relationship stage emerge d. At this point they did not work together with the community. Table 2: Major Results of Stakeholder Mapping (Detailed information in Appendix 6 )
! ! "# ! 8.1.1. ! Key Actors According to ICV's Project Coordinator ( ICV PC ) ICV's Project Coordinators ( ICV PC ) mentioned 2 2 actors, which included: one international donor, two partners, three NGOs, three community based organizations, four private entities (three markets and a bank), and nine public sector institutions. The ICV PC placed ICV in the middle of the paper, indic ating that all the actors somehow had a relationship with ICV, and then through ICV, they had some ties with Coopervila . 8.1.2. ! Key Actors According to ICV T eam Members ( ICV TM ) ICV TM mentioned 21 actors, including two NGOs, four private actors, 11 public instit utions, two community based organizations, and two individual actors. M embers of this group work with each association, cooperative, or group of family farmers . Participants started by placing Coopervila at the lower left side of the paper, a big house wit h a door, and some land. In the middle right of the paper, they wrote ICV, painted a house, a car, and some people. Afterward, they jotted down all the actors above Coopervila, explaining their location on the basis of their relationships with Coopervila, but not with ICV. REPOAMA is the third key actor that they placed in the middle lower part of the paper. This is a recent actor that will affect all the cooperatives, associations, and groups, and already works closely with ICV. 8.1.3. ! Key Actors According to C oopervila The third group that participated in the stakeholder mapping was Coopervila . P articipants started by writing Coopervila in the middle of the paper, then they wrote ICV in the lower right side of the paper. After words, the president started namin g the markets, and the other participants added the universities and EMBRAPA. At this point Coopervila had identified
! ! "" ! at least six actors however they had nor mention the Familias Agriculttoras . I asked who were the people that worked in the cooperative, a nd they mentioned the Familias Agricultoras , and one of the members said that without the Familias Agricultora s, they would not have cooperatives or faming. They identified 1 4 actors, one NGO, two community based organizations, three markets, one private actor, one individual, and six public institutions . 8.2. ! Rating interest and influence among actors E ach group was individually a sked to rank the actors from 5 to 5 ( 5 no interest, 5 high interest) and appl ied the same sc a le to characterize the influence of each acto r in the pathway to success for Coo p ervila , as a representative of family farmers organizations. The ranking for influence is related to the power dynamics that each actor/stakeholder has, and I will discuss this further along Figure 7 below, whi ch shows the ranking elaborated by Coopervila . $ $ $ % $ $ % $ $ & $ " $ & % ' " $ ' $ $ $ ' & ' ' ' & % " ())*+,-)./ ())*+,.01/ 2+130/-450 6789:;: =1010/>!:?,0@51A),/> B).+,-)!6>A/C5/1 D(E D<7F 7+,@/C) ;,+G+0A5,/!;/,/-/HA/ I+@,+A/,0/!C+!6C5@/JK)L MN7:F MIDN: D-A+,+>A D-G15+-@+
! ! "' ! Figure 7 : Scores given by Coopervila's participants to the actors in relation to the interest and influence they have for Coopervila 's success . Light yellow represents the influence and the darker yellow th e interest of the actors with respect to Coopervila . 8.3. ! Stakeholder vs Actors in Coopervila' s Value Chain Coopervila, ICV TM , and the ICV PC all took part in the same exercise to identify the actors and stakeholders within the value chain (Table 3). Participa nt groups Actors Stakeholders ICV PC Conexs, Fundo Amazonia, FAH/ Cristalino , Prefeitura de ParanaÂ’ta , and SEFAZ ICV, Coopervila , and REPOAMA ICV TM Banks, SEFAZ, R eceita Federal, EMBRAPA Coopervila, Familias Agricultora s, ICV, REPOAMA, EMPAER, Fornecedor es , and SEAF Coopervila EMBRAPA, Governo Estadual , USINA Familias Agricultoras, Coopervila, ICV, Mercado s, Coopernova , Del Bianqui, and SECEDU Table 3: Actors vs Stakeholders according the ICV PC, ICV TM, and Coopervila In the case of Coopervila , actors that are seen to have a direct effect over their livelihoods are their own families, the cooperative's markets, suppliers, local and state government, ICV, the universities, and EMBRAPA. The ICV PC map portrays partnerships, donors, some markets, and the public institutions with which Coopervila has contact to sell to the schools. The ICV TM map shows every actor they have to talk to accomplish the objectives the project has, and the actors that need to be involved with the family farming organizations req uire d to achieve their purposes . The information on actors and ranks for interest and influence provided through the three maps was combined (Table 4 ). Overall, ranks regarding interest aligned across participants except for the Governo Estadual and the S ecretaria de EducaÂÂ‹o , which were ranked high on interest by the three groups that participated in the mapping activity: ICV PC , ICV TM , and Coopervila. The ICV TM and Coopervila differed in how they ranked the Governo Estadual , for Coopervila the Governo Estadual has high influence (5), but the lowest rank
! ! "$ ! for interest, while the ICV TM ranked the influence as the lowest point and a medium low (2) for interest. For the Secretaria de EducaÂÂ‹o , both the Team and C oopervila agreed this actor had some interest , in contrast with the ICV PC that stated it did not have any interest . Actor ICV PC ICV TM Coopervila AGAF ( 1, 2) 0 0 ANVISA ( 3, 5) 0 0 Bancos ( 4, 1) ( 5, 5) 0 CEASA/MT 0 0 0 CONAB 0 (0, 0) 0 Conexus/ PAA (1, 2) 0 0 Consumidor Final 0 (2, 4) 0 Coopervila (5, 1) (5, 5) (5, 5) Coopernova ( 5, 3) 0 (5, 3) Contador 0 (0, 0) 0 EMBRAPA 0 ( 4, 5) ( 5, 5) EMPAER 0 (5, 5) 0 Escola 0 0 (5, 4) FAH (1, 4) 0 0 Familias agricultoras 0 (5, 5) (5, 5) Fornecedoras 0 (5, 4) 0 Fundo Amazonia 1, 4 0 0 Governo Estadual 0 (2, 5) ( 5, 5) Governo Federal 0 ( 5, 5) 0 ICV (5, 3) (5, 5) (5, 4) IDESAM 0 (0, 0) 0 IFMT 0 0 (0, 0) IOV (0, 0) (0, 0) 0 ISPN 0 (0, 0) 0 MAPA ( 2, 5) 0 0 MAPA Estadual 0 0 0 Mercados 0 (1, 4) (5, 4) ONG's 0 (0, 0) 0 Outr as universidades 0 0 0 Prefeitura ParanaÂ’ta ( 1, 5) (5, 4) (3, 4) Receita Federal 0 ( 4, 5) 0
! ! "O ! REPOAMA (5, 2) (5, 5) 0 SEAF ( 1, 5) (5, 5) 0 Secretaria de EducaÂÂ‹o (0, 3) (3, 4) (5, 4) SEFAZ ( 3, 5) ( 4, 5) 0 SEMAS ( 3, 5) 0 0 Supermercados Machad o 0 (1, 4) (5, 4) STR 0 (1, 5) 0 UNEMAT 0 0 (0, 0) USINA 0 0 ( 4, 3) VISA 0 0 0 Table 4 : A ctors identified and the ranking each group of participants assigned to each actor for Interest and Influence, represented as numbers in parentheses in that re spective order (Interest, Influence). If only a 0 a ppears , that means that actor was not identified by that group of participants. 8.4. ! Power Mapping The second objective was to identify the power dynamics that underlie the fruit and vegetable value chain of Coopervila . For this exercise , I worked with the same groups: ICV PC , ICV TM , and Coopervila . I used the names of the actors and stakeholders identified by the three groups to draw a fourth map (Figure 9 ). Figure 8 : Picture of the map made with the comb ined actors and stakeholders to elaborate the power mapping.
! ! "P ! The three different groups were asked to create a power tower after having a short conversation of what was power for each actor in the map and were given poker chips . E ach group had up to 100 chips, but it did not mean they had to use all of them . The height of the tower defined the amount of power each actor had concerning family agriculture and Coopervila . This section of the analysis will be divided by the 7 groups of actors that were consid ered for the power mapping: NGOs, Education and Research, Public Entities, Markets ( in this thesis again, as institutions that purchase commodities from the cooperatives) , Partners and Donors, Family Farmers Associations/Cooperatives/ Groups/ Networks, and Private actors. Each of the three participant groups w as asked to build the power tower and to identify the source (resources, decision making , knowledge, advice) of this power for each of the actors listed above (for more information and figures please r efer to Appendix 7) . At the beginning of the mapping, participants in each of the groups started talking about what power was. Some indicated that it was the capacity that a person had to make decisions. Afterwards I asked if they considered that power cou ld come from different sources, and I mentioned resources. The teams agreed that there are types of sources that provide power (Table 5) . Actor Type Team PC Coopervila Coopervila Collective 20 16 30 ICV NGO 14 10 13 Governo Estadual Pubic 10 11 15 EMBR APA Public 3 4 2 Prefeitura ParanaÂ’ta Public 3 12 13 Mercados Private 15 39 20 Escola Public 10 12 20 Familias agricultoras Individuals 20 16 30
! ! "Q ! USINA Private 15 2 20 UNEMAT Public 3 4 2 IFMT Public 3 4 2 Bancos Private 10 15 10 Governo Federal Pu blic 10 24 17 Receita Federal Public 10 1 17 SEFAZ Public 10 11 15 STR Private 2 5 5 EMPAER Public 2 11 15 SecretarÂ’a de Agricultura, Pecuaria e Aquicultura ParanaÂ’ta Public 3 12 13 Fornecedoras Private 10 1 8 Secretaria de EducaÂÂ‹o Public 10 12 20 Consumidor Final Private 14 39 20 REPOAMA Collective 11 16 20 Coopernova Collective 15 39 20 IOV NGO 14 10 4 ANVISA Public 5 24 17 MAPA Public 5 24 17 FAH Private 15 39 20 Conex s us/ PAA Donor 14 10 Fundo Amazonia Donor 10 24 17 Contador Private 3 6 12 CONAB Public 15 24 20 ONG's NGO 14 10 4 IDESAM NGO 14 10 4 SEMAS Public 4 11 15 Supermercados Machado Private 15 39 20 AGAF Private 15 39 20 CEASA/MT Public 15 24 15 Outras universidades e centros de pesquisa Private 3 1 2 ISPN NGO 14 10 4 Transporte Private 0 11 0 SEAF Public 4 11 25 VISA Public 0 12 13 MAPA Estadual Public 0 11 0 Table 5 : Type actors , number of chips and type of power according the ICV PC, ICV TM, and Coopervila
! ! "R ! a. ! NGOs Both the ICV TM and the ICV PC gave the same amo unt of power to two of the five actors, including ICV (Figure 1 0 ). Yet, Coopervila gave ICV the highest amount of power, explaining that even though they we re aware of the presence of other NGOs, they had never worked with them. In this exercise, the power all participants gave to ICV wa s almost the same, between 10 to 14 chips, and they all agree d that the source of power c ame from decision making, capacity building, auditing, and control of the economic assets ICV receive d ( p ower to ) . Figure 9 : Picture of the power towers from the ICV PC, ICV TM, and Coopervila power mapping. When Coopervila did this activity, and they were evaluating the power that ICV had, they said the NGO was one of the most important actors for Coopervila because ICV helped them, g ave them training and was there every step of the way. Before the power mapping,
! ! '& ! you could interpret t hat ICV had power over Coopervila , and this cooperative did not recognize the power ICV hold. After the activity, Coopervila realized they had the power t o act, the power within the cooperative. When talking about the importance of acting as a cooperative and join forces with other farming groups, they identified the conceptual element of power to and power within. For the other actors in this group (IOV, I DESAM, ISPN, and other ONGs) Coopervila gave a lower score in the power tower because these actors d id not have presence in Coopervila's development. ICV PC and ICV TM gave the same amount to these set of actors because all the NGOs we re working toward sim ilar goals and most of them depend ed of the same fund to continue working. b. ! Education and Research The three participant groups gave a lower power tower to the three education institutes. Participants said th is group of actors have power source of knowledge however they d id not perform any actions in favor or negative to Coopervila . These institutions are part of a network of which Coopervila belongs; currently, the education institutions do not have any power towards family farming, but the three participa nts agree d that it would be good to have more research and access to the knowledge these three actors could provide. The three groups agree d that the source of power is based on the knowledge and advising they could share with ICV and the family farming or ganizations ( power to and power within ) . The ICV PC gave the source of decision making to these organizations because they decide if they share or not the knowledge and if they use their power to support family farming or not ( power to ) .
! ! 'S ! c. ! ICV PC ICV PC gave the highest power , with the same amount of chips (24) to ANVISA, CEASA/MT, CONAB, Governo Federal , and MAPA . All these actors are in the national sphere, are actors that have the power to participate in decision making regarding policies, laws, programs, and the general w orkings of the country ( power to, power over ). ICV PC assigned these actors the following resources : decision making, knowledge and advice, auditing, and control over assets ( power to, power over ). Not all the actors have the same source s of power ; however, they were assigned the same amount of power due to the level of governance they are located in. The second group is made of the Escola, the Prefeitura de ParanaÂ’ta, SECAG, SECEDU, and VISA, which are actors and stakeholders at the loca l level (12 chips). The sources of power were decision making, knowledge and advice, and control of assets ( power to and power over ). The third group wa s the state level with a height of 11 chips and include d the following entities: EMPAER, Governo Estadu al , MAPA Estadual , SEAF, and SEMAS. Their source of power is mainly in control of assets and decision making ( power to and power over ). Finally, EMBRAPA and Receita Federal had a very short power tower (1) , in spite of their sources of power determined by the nature and functions of these organizations. The actions they perform over these sources of power do not affect Coopervila or family farming in Brazil . d. ! ICV TM ICV TM decided that the actors that had more power are CEASA/MT and CONAB, both in charge of commercialization of agricultural products in Brazil. The first one is at the state level, and the second one is the national level.
! ! '# ! This group of participants decided they ha d different sources of power, such as control of assets, decision making, auditi ng, and the power of knowledge related to prices and markets ( power to power over ) . The second set of actors and stakeholders wa s a mix between national, state, and local spheres: the Escola, Governo Estadual, Governo Federal, SECEDU , and SEFAZ (10 chips) . The source of power all the se actors and stakeholders have in common is the control of assets ( power over ). All except the Governo Estadual have the power of decision making; the participants explain that this stakeholder d id not have the power of decisi on making; this is a transitory area between the national level and the local level. The third set of actors h ad five or less on the power tower. These actors we re ANVISA, MAPA, SEAF, SEMAS, EMBRAPA, Prefeitura de ParanaÂ’ta, SECAG, EMPAER, and MAPA Estadu al. ICV TM gave the MAPA, SEAF, and SEMAS the same sources of power, control of assets, decision making, auditing, and the power of knowledge ( power over and power to ). e. ! Coopervila The results of Coopervila's mapping are interesting for two reasons; the fi rst is that the actors with more perceived power ha d fewer sources of power. In contrast, some actors with less perceived power ha d more sources of power. The second is that this workshop was developed one week after the Encontro de Parceiros, which was a meeting ICV organized with the 14 family farming groups with which they work . One goal was to talk about the present funding situation, and events related to the Fundo Amazonia . In that moment P resident Bolsonaro decided to change some rules and agreement s between the countries that financed Fundo Amazonia and the Brazilian
! ! '" ! Government. The biggest problem wa s that President Bolsonaro questioned Norway 's and Germany 's intentions i n the Brazilian Amazon and decided to audit every project saying there were ec onomic inconsisten cies (Gubin, 2019; Watanabe, 2019). The Encontro de Parceiros was a space where the farmers asked questions and received information that led them to understand that the funds that ICV receive d , as any NGO, we re limited, and controlled fr om the outside . This new knowledge affected the way the members of Coopervila referred to ICV, the other actors, and stakeholders. This change of perception was visible after talking to the farmers when the meeting was over and in Coopervila 's power mappin g. For example, o ne of the farmers from an association in another municipality said to me that before they considered ICV the base and the blood of the association, but now they realized that ICV was just a partner, an important one, but they needed to sta nd up on their own because they just realized that ICV and other NGOs were not going to be there forever . This issue will be examined with more detail i n the discussion section. The SEAF, CONAB, Escola, and SECEDU ha d over 20 chips in their power tower. Th ey all share d the power of decision making, and the last three ha d the power of auditing . The second group wa s between 17 and 15 in the tower power . ANVISA, Governo Federal, MAPA, Receita Federal, CEASA/MT, EMPAER, Governo Estadual , SEFAZ, and SEMAS are th e actors in this group. The first four actors have control of the assets (power over ) yet, all the actors in this group have the power of decision making and auditing ( power to ). The final group has a height of 13 and includes the Prefeitura de ParanaÂ’ta, the SecretarÂ’a de Agricultura, Pecuaria e Aquicultura de ParanaÂ’ta , and VISA.
! ! '' ! f. ! Public Actors Figure 11 shows the graphic representation of the power tower uniting the perception s of the participants for the public actors by ICV PC, ICV TM and Coopervila . Th e two higher towers are CONAB and CEASA7MT, two entities in charge of produce commercialization. In comparison. it i s understandable why Coopervila gave a higher number of chips to SEAF : almost all the produce Cooperv i la sells goes to the school, and this contract exist s because of a public policy . I n this cooperative ' s mind, if SEAF makes a change, their market opportunities may vary. Figure 1 0 : Description of the actor, the three participants, and the score each participant gave to an actor determined by their range of actions and source of power. Each color represents the score of one of the participants Ã as explained in A ppendi x 7 . g. ! Markets The actors and stakeholders that are part of the market group are the AGAF, Coopernova, Consumidor Final, Escola, FAH, Mercados , SECEDU, and Supermercados Machado . The "& "& #$ "R "R "R #& #& S$ & $ S& S$ #& #$ "& "$ '& '$ ())*+,.01/ =010/>!:?,0@51A),/> I6:< :B:< ()->5=0C),!<0-/1 7+,@/C)> ())*+,.01/ =010/>!:?,0@51A),/> 7+,@/C)> T+0?UA!)G!*)V+,!A)V+, ())*+,.01/ D(E % ;( D(E % F7
! ! '$ ! participants decided that none of the actors and stakeholders ha d a tower power less than 10 . Coopervila decided that regardless of the source of power, all the actors in this group had the same amoun t of power because all of them are clients, they affect the production, the control of the assets, and the control of income ( power over ). They could even change the ownership of the assets. The Escola and the SECEDU a we e the only actors that d id not have control of economic assets as a source of power. Coopervila explained this is because the PNAE, the public policy, and the money that goes with it, is managed by the national government. The ICV PC and ICV TM assigned a low score of 12 and 10 to the Esco la and the SECEDU compared to the other actors in this section , the power of the Escola and SECEDU is connected, and it depends on the decisions and funds other actors make. The other actors of markets have the same amount of power, and their sources are t he same, control of assets, knowledge, and ability to speak, audit, and decision making. h. ! Partners and Donors There were two actors in this group: Conex s us/PPA and Fundo Amazoni a . Members of ICV TM gave 14 chips to Conex s us/PPA and 10 to Fundo Amazonia in t he power tower, and they explained they have the same sources of power; decision making, control over assets, knowledge, and auditing . ICV PC gave Fundo Amazonia a higher power tower than Conex s us/PPA. They explained that at that moment, Conex s us was start ing the partnership, while Fundo Amazonia ha d been present for years. Finally, Coopervila , at the moment, did not know that Conex s us/PPA was starting a partnership with ICV; that is why they ranked them with 0.
! ! 'O ! However, they explained that both of these ac tors have different sources of power, and they c ould act on them to benefit family farming. i. ! Family Farmers Associations/Cooperatives/Groups/Networks In this group the actors identified we re Coopervila and the 13 associations/ cooperatives/ groups of family farming, and REPOAMA . B oth ICV TM and Coopervila decided to give Coopervila and the Familias Agricultoras the higher tower among the actors/stakeholder . Coopervila ranked themselves the highest with 30. During the workshop, Coopervila explained that with out the cooperative , and speaking as representatives of family farmers, there would not be family farming . Even though Coopervila may not have many economic assets, they identif ied in themselves, the Familias Agricultoras, and REPOAMA with many sources of p ower ( power to, power with, power within ). The ICV PC gave the same height and sources of power to Coopervila , the Familias Agricultoras , and REPOAMA. For the three participants, the STR d id not have much power concerning family farming or Coopervila . The participants recognized the importance the STR played in some aspects of farmer's lif e, sometimes they need ed assistance in labor issues, health issues, and the STR ha d services for those farmers affiliated with the STR ; however, they d id not see this acto r as powerful. j. ! Private Actors The four actors in th is group represent different productive areas of the private sector: Bancos, Contador, Fornecedoras , and USINA. This last one is the actor that had the highest tower among the ones in this group. This res ult can be explained by the critical role that USINA has played in Coopervila's life . As was explained previously, Coopervila , the cooperative itself, was a product of the
! ! 'P ! hydroelectric USINA many years ago. When Odebrech t arrived in ParanaÂ’ta to build the hydroelectric project , Odebrech t had a program where they would buy local produce grown by cooperatives from the municipality. In that matter, Odebrech r and USINA decided to support family farmers that came together and created an official, legal cooperat ive. After some months, Coopervila was created and as a cooperative, they sold everything they produce d in their farms to USINA. However, once the construction of the hydroelectric was over, the commercialization of products was over. The other actors in t his group ha d a lower tower (value), and this means that the participants d id not perceive them as currently powerful actors . Although some of these actors have a high power tower, they we re not the most important actors . They had played a role in Coopervi la's success, but not all of them ha d power over Coopervila . The Bancos ha d power to and indirect power over Coopervila , and USINA had power over and power to Coopervila . However, seeing the top three power towers of the participants, they d id not have th e same actors . Coopervila and ICV TM chose Coopervila and the Familias Agricultoras as the stakeholder s with more power, but ICV PC and ICV TM both chose Mercados as the more important one. For ICV PC , the Mercados (and in general, the markets) ha d more po wer over any other actor or stakeholder mentioned. Finally, for Coopervila , the third actor that ha d a higher tower is the SEAF. This wa s directly related to the fact that this public entity wa s one the actor that regulate d family farming ( power over ). Th e power they ha d or how they decided to act with their power, may have benefit ted or put in danger Coopervila's livelihood.
! ! 'Q ! The next section is an analysis of the information and data collected in light of the conceptual framework and the methodological to ols used.
! ! 'R ! 9. ! Analysis From the information gathered , it can be inferred that the relationships each group (in this case ICV PC, ICV TM) ha d with the different actors wa s defined by the nature and characterization of the relationship defined by their positio n within the value chain. For example, ICV PC identified many actors at the state and national level, also donors or financial partners. ICV PC job is in the big sphere where they design the projects and ha d to consider regulations and financial issues, th us , the identification of this type of actors. ICV TM identified actors at the municipal and state levels, especially those that relate d to specific process the family farming organization needed to go through. For Coopervila the actors mentioned were dire ctly related to the action actors could take that benefit or put in danger their livelihood. Coopervila explained they fe lt a lack of trust regarding some state and national institutions, and that translate d in the ir categorization of these actors in a ve ry low point of interest and influence towards family farming. All participants recognized there wa s a fragile relationship between the cooperatives and the government at all levels. Coopervila ha d a constant relationship with the Secretaries of Education and Family Farming due to a public policy PNAE that create d a market for their produce. Most of the family farmers groups d id not see or recognize support from the local, state, and national government. They perceive d the public institutions as an actor t hat made rules, demand ed money, and even though they may be considered stakeholders, these institutions we re not perceived by the family farming organization as supporters or partners for family farming organizations.
! ! $& ! Perceptions of power by actors over Co opervila varied among the three group s of participants. Nevertheless, common trends also emerged . For example, members of these three group all agreed in the same amount of influence markets had, because according to them, markets , as institutions that pur chase goods from the cooperatives, define the space, the price , the producers from whom they purchase , and the ultimate consumer s ( power to and power over ). The second actor wa s the local government because of their power related to the policy that ma de th e school the most significant client ( power to and power over ). The third was ICV, and participants said th is was because ICV ha d the sources (knowledge, access to donors with money, people), and so they c ould have much influence on how the cooperative c ou ld succeed or not ( power to and power with ) . Finally, most agreed that Coopervila was the fourth actor on the power ranking. However, the ICV PC said that Coopervila d id not have much influence, because they gr e w and s old produce, but could not find donors or change policy. Furthermore, Coopervila and the ICV TM stated that without a cooperative, there wa s nothing or no one to work for ( power to and power within) . Every family farming association/ cooperatives/groups ha d a different level of empowerment, som e of them ha d more resources or had gained more ability to act, However, they d id share some characteristics. Coopervila i n theory , has a degree of agency that allows i ts a ct ing or mak ing decisions, although they need the resources (funds, land, seeds, fa mily members, etc.) that enable the agency to act and have accomplishments (production, livelihoods, financial returns, etc.). At the same time, these accomplishments lead to livelihood and development outcomes (development as freedom, food security, susta inable development, sustainable livelihoods,
! ! $S ! etc.) , and th ese will have an effect of the livelihood assets that will in consequence, affect Coopervila . However, the livelihood assets are influence d by some factors that shape a vulnerability contex t , such as stability of markets and consumers, new governments, policies, climate change, and variation of natural factors. Finally, this vulnerability context influence s and get s influenced by the governance context, that also has power and influences the agency of Coopervila . After the Encontro de Parceiros , the perspective of ICV from the farmers changed from dependable to parceiro . This ma de a difference because the farmers became aware the farmers' organizations ha d to be empowered and use the capacity they ha d been building over the two year project and start being more independent. The farmers ' words changed the ir expression, the tone (they talked with a stronger voice, without hesitation) when they talked about their relationship with ICV and with other sta keholder s after the Encontro de Parceiros . They recognize d the importance of ICV in their process, the companionship, and that ICV would be part of the growing process, too, but now as partners. Suddenly the lack of financial support from ICV (that came fr om Fundo Amazonia), empowered them, they became aware of the ir own capabilities, the sources of power they had, and started thinking about how could they use their agency to achieve their goals . I visited different cooperatives and associations, and also participated on events that allowed me to witness the dynamics between the cooperatives/associations and ICV worked. There wa s almost a sense that ICV wa s the reason they all exist ed. G ratefulness was expressed all the time with the ICV TM. However, in one of the observations I did, ICV TM was asking in an association, who was the blood, the engine of the association,
! ! $# ! and they said ICV. The person from the team explained that if ICV left, then the association would not function according to what the associa tion just said , that ICV was the blood, the engine of the association . Afterwards, there was silence, and the ICV TM asked again, who is the engine of the association. The members of the association said the families that composed the association we re the engine because if they d id not work or exist, the association would disappear talking about all the family farmers groups/ a ssociations/ cooperatives . During the different mapping workshops, perceptions of the relationships and power dynamics that exist e d within the actors and stakeholder identified by the participants were explicit. However, the three power and stakeholder workshops had very different results. This contrast shows different understanding of the local governance by ICV PC, ICV TM, and Coop ervila . U nderstanding that in every context there are different levels in which an actor can work and move around, makes clear why they have different perception s of power. Farmers identify actors that affect their livelihood but that they can see (the mar kets as institutions that purchase their goods ); ICV TM identifies the actors that they more contact with because of their job; and ICV PC named the actors that have a bigger spectrum of action, policy makers. The emerging questions after this exercise re late to the effects that different perceptions of power dynamics can have over Coopervila's empowerment, and how this empowerment of Coopervila further affects the governance in the value chain. Questions a lso relate to external factors that impact percept ions of power (e.g. change in government) and the ir impact in the agency of the actors. I will go back to Kabeer's definition of empowerment, particularly when she states that in order to be empowered there is need of agency, resources, and achievements. In this sense,
! ! $" ! Coopervila has the agency: as a cooperative, it is able to act . It also has the power to, and power within. The resources it has to act in the agency domain are not only physical assets, but the identification and acknowledgment of the power the cooperative has and the location of each and every actor or stakeholder in a specific part of the stakeholder maps developed and their relationships to those. The achievement domain to which the author refers, represents the possibility of the Coopera tive to access markets, reach spaces of decision making, and receive loans or benefits from programs . Brazil, as many countries of the world, is having a change in the political system. President Bolsonaro assumed power with different ideas of what agricul ture and development means, and his vision already impact ed how the country functions .
! ! $' ! 10. ! Discussion 10.1. ! Methods The stakeholder and power mapping presented some contingencies in practice. First, it is important to state that relationships among actors and stakeholders, and the power dynamics that exist among them, change frequently. In the attempt to understand them by using these methods the project took a snapshot of individuals' perceptions at a specific period of time regarding the nature of actors , stakeholders, relationships, and power dynamics. This might be considered as a weakness b ecause it does not assess / characterize or demonstrate the power relationships in a constant state . The tool allows to understand a specific time of this relationsh ips and power dynamics. It limits the possibility to visualize changes that occur, and the incidence of new actors or stakeholder, or changes in the environmental, social, political, economic, and cultural spheres. However, in this specific project, the in terest was to visualize and understand the present of th ese relationships and not to make assumptions of the future. Nonetheless, it would be very interesting to create a method that could track those changes over time , that would not entail a repetition o f the exercise at different moments in time . The methods used in this project where qualitative and valuable information was gathered. However, for the future the recommendation of using mix ed methods allows to provide perceptions and often verifiable dat a . It may be also useful if the project 's goal is to provide recommendations in actionable ways. One of the strengths of my approach is that both the stakeholder and power mapping were participatory methods, which allowed broad engagement of the people in volved in the
! ! $$ ! activities . In all six mapping activities all participants talked and provided insight s . The idea to map the relationships was successful insofar as it allowed the farmers and ICV to actually sit down, and make both these relationships and th e power dynamics explicit. Other strengths relied on the elaboration of power towers, not only because the tower itself made visible the perceived amount of power a stakeholder has over another, but also because it generated discussions among the participa nts, understanding the different perceptions that people have, and enriching the conversation. The best thing of developing participatory methods is that the people involved in the workshops became engaged , and in the processes of explaining their thought s actually realize many things they have not though t about before. Given that usually people are immersed in their day to day life, this sort of reflection requires for people to take a moment, look at the complete picture of the world and circumstances su rrounding them, and actually internalize the things happening around them. With ICV we tried to communicate with some stakeholder s , nevertheless we were not able to schedule an interview. There was a need to interview a representative of the markets ' acto rs, EMPRAPA, and EMPAER. 10.2. ! Agency and empowerment The concepts of empowerment and agency have been central to articulate my work on this field practicum. The importance of these concepts became more important as I finished information collection and particip ation in different events. Several factors can be identified as drivers of empowerment in this case. One of the first ones is that Coopervila ha d become more empowered by sharing information with me and the team, but also by receiving
! ! $O ! information like the one they learned in the Encontro de Parceiros . As it was mentioned, empowerment can derive from all agency, resources and achievements. When Coopervila recognizes that they have an agency, when they acknowledge they have resources that can drive their acco mplishments, they become more empowered and, in the end, they have power within , and power with . The empowerment emerges from Coopervila's collective agency ( power with ) as a cooperative in family farming and the awareness of confidence ( power within ) of i ts members. 10.3. ! The impact of this research Understanding relationships and power dynamics is important because it allows the different actors to acknowledge their location within the inter institutional and actor landscape, and in doing so, advance understan ding of their agency and the possibilities they have in the different environments. In the context of family farming it is important because it allows family farmers to learn who are those stakeholders with whom they need to create strong relationships and networks , so as to enhance possibilities to transcend to policy or governmental programs, including enhanced market participation. This project was designed and implemented because ICV had a need to understand the governance among the value chain, improv e processes, and increase opportunities for the family farming organizations. This project then is important because it allowed the farmers to see the different actors and stakeholder that play a role in their value chain . I t also allowed them to visualize how these relationships worked, who had more power, where d id this power come from, how wa s that power performed, and from this, understand their own agency.
! ! $P ! The agricultural and markets world is at a moment when private actors are having much more prese nce and are changing the way through which value chains are defined and operate. This confluence of interests is creating more competition among the farmers and the markets, requiring certifications or accountability frameworks that change the ways through which agricultural is practice d and market s operate. O n the other hand, the world is spinning in different directions that sometimes seem to be at odds with each other. Around 349 governments have committed to the Sustainable Development Goals, and the 20 30 Agenda (SDG, 2020). At the same time, there are also political changes in some governments that put forward right wing regimes, which is the case of Brazil. This recent agenda setting and pathways have affected the relationships constituencies in those countries have been building over the years. Assessing these relationships including whether they still exist or how have they changed also allows the actors to visualize and plan future activities. This kind of power research allows small family farmers and local NGOs to understand where they stand with respect to each other, acknowledge each other's agency, and work towards supporting collaborations to become more empowered and more resilient in this changing world. 10.4. ! System Mapping Mapping the system all ows the stakeholders to understand the context of which t hey are part . When doing so, the system organizes the different sources, actors, actions, and general information that explains how the system works. It is a tool that can also be useful when sharing information with stakeholders, and it helps generate discussions on the role s each
! ! $Q ! actor/stakeholder play in the system, the sources, or action that act as an inhibitor or allow an action to take place. Based on the results found, I have developed a visi on of the family farming system using the conceptual tool of systems thinking (Figure 13). This is a graphic tool that represents the different interactions that exist among the stakeholders, and the symbol for a switch indicates the capacity of this inter action to occur or not , there is always a loss of energy, information, and opportunities, in this diagram is represented by the dotted lines . In the case of my model, interactions are flows and mostly represent transfer of funds and knowledge . Power relati onships are also represented with clarification of the type of power (over, to, within, and with).
! ! $R ! Figure 1 1 : Family Farming System Mapping for Paranaita (MT, Brazil). This diagram depicts the range of actors and their relationships along the fruit and vegetables value chain. Red: denotes the national, state, and local governments in Brazil and all t he actions they perform. Yellow: represents the market actors and their actions. Light blue: indicates ICV and their actions. Green: represents Coopervila/Family farmers and their actions. The SWITCH (ON/OFF) represents the possibility of the system not op erating and as such, interactions and actions represented as flows not occurring. The botted lines represent the loss of knowledge, energy, or opportunities when the switch is off. (See text for more details).
! ! O& ! 11. ! Some insights offered to ICV and Coopervi la â€¢ ! I CV along with other NGOs working in the region could possibly consider the design and development of periodic stakeholder and power mapping as tools to understand changing relationships and power dynamics. The information so generated could be translat ed with a tool like Kumu ( https://kumu.io/ ), a visual approach to better see themselves and other organizations in an interactive manner . This approach would allow them to experiment with the knowledg e to understand different possible outcomes. This activity could provide more insights to the different stakeholders of which are the relationships that exist in the present and how they can strengthen them. â€¢ ! Doing focus group discussions with the communit y and overall consumers also in a periodic manner could help shed light to understand changing necessities, interests, questions, and suggestions on products that family farmers offer. This activity may need members of the team that have specific knowledge related to markets' actors. â€¢ ! To favor communication ICV could have a space to develop this common language and perception of power and stakeholders when designing a project or program . â€¢ ! To improve relationships and increase opportunities Coopervila could work o n strengthening the relationship s with the stakeholders identified, and create new relationship s with the actors t they consider could be potential stakeholders in order to achieve the goals they have as a cooperative. â€¢ ! The stakeholders for this case study , according to a range of social and institutional actors , mostly belong to the market sphere. These agents recognize the amount of power they have over family farming. Brazil, had embraced and promoted industrial
! ! OS ! agriculture, while also supporting f amily farming initiatives. This agenda has currently shifted at this moment, with a President for whom the agribusiness and related development vision prevails. In this situation, there is need on the part of family farming participants to develop stronger relationships with the different market stakeholders to create a need for the products they can deliver and in doing so, enhance somewhat prospects for more sustained sources of income. One of the most crucial stakeholders recognized by the participants i s the Consumidor Final (Final Consumer). In that sense, there is an opportunity to raise awareness among consumers of the Cooperative's produce , so that consumers fully gain awareness of the roles their consumption choice s have to potentially benefit famil y farming participants directly.
! ! O# ! 12. ! Conclusions This practicum started when ICV reached out to the Master of Sustainable Development Practice program asking if there was a student interest ed in working with ICV and Family Far m ing organizations on governance issues in the value chains. This project had as an objective to understand and differentiate the relationships between actors and stakeholders and the power dynamics that underlie the value chain Coopervila of a family farmer cooperative in Mato Grosso Brazil. Understanding the ties that C oopervila has with the different actors that have influence and interest in their production and commercialization activities is fundamental to increase the possibilities on production, commercialization, but al so the options on being recognized by different stakeholders around the state and the country. My first specific objective was to identify the actors and stakeholders that have a place along the vegetable and fruits value chain of Coopervila. I reviewed t he documents that ICV had and talked and had informal conversations with the farmers and ICV TM, and realized there were many other actors missing in the narrative, especially in Coopervila's value chain. The stakeholder mapping method was a limitation whe n doing the activity with ICV TM because only one person of the team knew all the actors that had a relationship with Coopervila . At that moment, the conversation changed to find which actors had a relationship with the family farmers organizations, puttin g Coopervila as an example but allowing workshop participants to name more. Among ICV TM, ICV PC, and Coopervila they identified 41 actors from private, public, NGO, education and research, markets, and farmers based organizations spheres. There is a clea r difference between the actors that ICV TM and ICV PC identified, and between these
! ! O" ! two and Coopervila . These perceptions are based on the actions that each participant group develops on a daily basis. The second objective was to determine the relationsh ips that exist ed among the actors and stakeholders identified along the value chain of Coopervila . The relationships with the actors are defined by the activities each actor develops on Coopervila's value chain. Coopervila identified the actors that have a direct effect on the production, marketing, and sales of their produce, such as markets, local and state government, ICV, the families that belong to Coopervila , and the two universities and EMBRAPA. For ICV TM the relationships are based on those actors with whom they need to have contact to work with the farmers based organizations and accomplish their stated goals. Finally, for ICV PC, relationships rely on the ability to fund and support projects . The third specific objective was to identify the power dynamics that underlie the Cooperative's value chain. Given that this project aimed to understand the perceptions of three main stakeholders, this method is very useful. However, there were changes to be made to make the mapping when applying it to differ ent groups of participants in the same project. The mapping is a space were the participants may disagree on which actor has more power, or the source of this power, and it can end up being a long activity. Also, the tool did not mention the importance of establishing a collective understanding and definition of power, but once I realized this was the case I created a space for the participants to define it. Nevertheless, the information generated is interesting and worth of reflection. The different perce ptions of power and sources of power among actors from the three different
! ! O' ! participants groups illustrated the different levels of efforts that influence d the perceptions of the actors and stakeholders. The fourth and final objective was to propose altern atives to address the power dynamics and enhance the governance of the Coopervila value chain. First and foremost, the family farming organizations could become more empowered to increase resilience and be able to protect their assets and attain developmen t outcomes. Achievement of these goals seem s important in a context characterized by constant political and environmental changes that place the farmers in a vulnerable position. The importance of identifying the various power sources, their dimensions, an d the way the actors' act on their power can shape the ways through which these relationships continue to develop in the future and the establishment of new ones. Participation on the mapping and other exercises and activities I held with them, including f urther discussion of preliminary findings, are mechanisms through which Coopervila can gain empowerment, as it may allow them to better understand their bargaining power and how they may better compete in the family farming system. Family farming is a glo bal movement trying to improve the rural livelihoods and also join forces with conservation. In Brazil, family farming is a key component of the social structures , it represents the livelihood for many families, and it is also a tradition that has been pas sed by generations. Even if it does not contribute to the international economy, it is the livelihood of many families around Mato Grosso and other states. Organized family farmers associations, cooperatives, and groups can improve their income, contribute to food security, and conservation goals.
! ! O$ ! It is crucial to understand that sustainable livelihoods can only exist when resilience is part of the process, and at the same time, there is need for empowered communities. The three groups that engaged in the participatory mapping identified different actors, stakeholders, and perceived power in different ways. These are a consequence of the activities that each participant carries out, but also reflect the level of relationship and communications the actors a nd stakeholders have among them. Having a common understanding of the power each stakeholder has can allow the family farming organizations to be empowered and understand how to move in th is complex system. First, this is possible because the organizations will recognize their own power, and second, because when power is recognize d power, sources of power can also be identified . For ICV, knowing the actors the organizations identified and how they perceive the power may allow them to do a careful planning of new activities. For instance, often a leading organization like ICV does not know the internal constraints that exist between the family farmers and other organizations, and other gaps mentioned by ICV in some of their internal documents (ICV, 2018d). I CV has been doing a widely recognized work with the farmers, but understanding the governance of the value chains and how to strengthen some relationships among farmers and other institutions were concerns they mentioned to me, and that is one of the reaso ns this project existed. My Practicum research project was designed during the first semester of 2019, and field work was done over the summer of the same year. During those months many changes occurred inside the government. The most notorious one was th e Brazilian government's decision to make another audit of the organizations that were beneficiaries of the Fundo Amazonia (ICV, IOV, among others), and later, not to follow the agreements to which the
! ! OO ! Fundo Amazonia had committed as the main donor for pro jects in the Brazilian Amazon. This change inflicted stress on the NGOs that work in this region of the country, but also to the many organizations of farmers that have been developing their livelihoods with the help of their programs, and in my case, of I CV's active agenda with family farming. There is a constant waiting on what is going to happen next, what other decisions will be made that will have an effect on the livelihoods of many people around the country, and this specific region in particular. T here is a need to strengthen the farmers associations for them to be resilient, from the information gathered, farmers know that they do not have the adaptive capacity in times of vulnerability, they lack economic resource and agency. Changes are not only due to the many environmental stresses they are facing, but to the new political context that every government brings. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) explains resilience as the "ability of a system and its component parts to anticipat e, absorb, accommodate, or recover from the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient manner" (IPCC, 2012: 5). The argument being made here, is that by being empowered, the farmers and their organizations have the ability to become more resili ent. And to be empowered, it is necessary for actors and stakeholders to visualize how empowered or disempowered other actors and stakeholders are in the same system. Farmers have an individual agency that connects with the collective agency of the associ ations, cooperatives, and groups to which they belong. This agency is the ability of the farmers or the cooperatives to act on their own behalf. For this to occur, they have a need of resources (the means), which represent the livelihood assets (physical, financial, human, social, and natural). Once these actors have these assets, they are able to achieve
! ! OP ! their goals. These achievements are linked to Sen's idea of development as freedom. However, the action of family farming is influenced by policies as wel l as by institutions and processes (e.g. markets decisions, polices, programs, funds, among others; PIPs) that exist in the country, the region, the state, the municipality, and the community, and framed by unexpected conditions associated with climate cha nge. PIPs also influence the agency of the farmer, and in consequence, the attainment of freedom. Recognition in this project that farmers need to become empowered and need to have control of their livelihood assets in order to be resilient to contextual influences including PIPs seems an important step for the Family Farmers organizations and also for the stakeholders. During the ICV's Encontro de Parceiros , which agglutinated the 14 family faming associations, cooperatives and groups with which they wor k, ICV explained new funding limitations and necessary changes due to new governmental settings. At that moment, the conversation among the farmers and members of their organizations regarding the perceptions of their relationships with ICV changed. Farmer s realized they needed to become independent and recognize their own agency, and that perceptions of relationships with other actors when systems where these relationships are embedded are dynamic and somewhat volatile makes research trying to understand t hem somewhat futile. Due to the dynamism of the relationships among the actors and stakeholders of the system, these relationships become fragile and create the needs of making research with adaptive capacity. If I were to do the stakeholder mapping again after the event, the results would characterize the relationships very differently from what they said before.
! ! OQ ! After the Encontro de Parceiro, Coopervila realized that they had their own agency and they had resources to act on. Based on statements made it is almost safe to say that they became more empowered by realizing their agency, recognizing that they have resources, and they could achieve their own outcomes. Many organizations work with communities to promote development in different areas of interes t, and more often than not, the relationships between the organization and the communities end up being paternalistic. Transforming this relationship into a partnership and empowering the communities is often a difficult and not frequent process. Before th e Encontro de Parceiros , this was the relationship that the family farming organizations had with ICV, however, the event allowed conversations from all the actors involved on how to transform the relationships and empower the family farming organizations. Finally, the case study was successful in the sense that the information gathered demonstrated different sources and dimensions of power, but also showed the different perceptions on power from each stakeholder and the necessity of creating a common unde rstanding of power dynamics. A proof of concept of the methodological approach was developed and this basic approach and work structure can be replicated with the other 13 groups.
! ! OR ! 13. ! Problems, limitations and opportunities According to the initial propo sal, the stakeholder mapping should have been done in the fourth week of fieldwork. However, ICV had many activities in the first two weeks in which I was able to participate, and also needed to get familiar with the team and their work. This was crucial, the ICV TM are the people who work day and night with the farmers in order to achieve, not only ICV goals, but the goals of each association/ cooperative/ group of family farmers. There were also opportunities for me to meet several times with Coopervila and actually create bonds with the community before doing the activities I had planned. As an anthropologist, and now as a development practitioner, I am completely convinced of the importance of creating the bond and understanding the context on which we are working. By spending time with the farmers, not only of Coopervila but other cooperatives, associations and groups, I was able to understand that family farming in this region cannot be divided in one farmer organization, and that in order to do this c ase study , I needed to understand the region. In the end, this was a worthwhile effort because Coopervila and the team were talking freely, and we were able to dive deep into some complex topics. Nevertheless, even with the time constrains, the three stake holder mapping and the three power mapping were completed in the fieldwork time. The second time constraint regarding the fieldwork was carrying out the semi structured interviews. The people chosen to participate in the interviews were not available in t he timeframe proposed, so the timeframe adapted and waited for a date when they were available to participate.
! ! P& ! As it was mentioned before, time appears to be the most significant limitation of the fieldwork. Three months is a short period of time to develo p a project when you do not know the community. Due to the lack of time and resources, the project only focused on one cooperative. In that sense, this limited the scope of the study from 14 associations/groups/cooperatives to only one. Finally, I want to bring a personal consideration when working as a development practitioner whose goal is to bring skills to address a specific local concern. Even though it is known that proposals always change when arriving to the field, I feel there is the need to be mo re self aware of the flexibility required. There are interests from the host organization, ICV in this case, my own practitioner's interest, and the actual political situation that will set the landscape conditions within which to develop the project. As a practitioner, it is always important to have back up ideas: activities, tools, questions, etc., if your method did not work well, or if you needed an extra activity to create confidence between the participants. This will allow you to be more adaptive a nd aware that you are prepared for what can appear during fieldwork.
! ! PS ! 14. ! Cross disciplinary Considerations The most distinctive form of cross disciplinary implication in the practicum is related to the ICV TM while I was working with them in Brazil. Ei ght of the nine members of the team were in some field of natural science, with the remaining member being a historian, geographer with a masters in sociology. When I carried out the mapping activities and participated in events the ICV TM was developing, it was interesting to learn how different team members approached the challenges or the positive outcomes of their activities. Nevertheless, they had different knowledge that contributed different insights to mine, since I come from an anthropologist backg round. This is because in family agriculture there are many different disciplines playing a role in its success; it includes farmers, agronomists, sociologist, anthropologists, biologists, political scientists, and economists. Another consideration is the conceptual framework of this project as I formulated it. It considers sustainable livelihoods, power dynamics, and the sustainable development goals. The project aimed to have a broader effect on family farming, considering that in order for family farming to be a sustainable livelihood, you need climate change actions, government actions, power and gender actions, and ma n y others. The practicum is cross scale because it had the presence of different stakeholders (private public at local, state, national l evels, and community). Even though I focused on one municipality, I worked within various municipalities in one state.
! ! P# ! References Access, E., & Monitoring, P. (n.d.). Equal Access Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation toolkit Module 2: Setting objec tives and indicators Introduction: The importance of participatory indicators, 1 Ã 14. Alencar, B. R. de O. (2013). Conflitos sociais e a formaÂÂ‹o da AmazÂ™nia. Boletim Do Museu Paraense EmÂ’lio Goeldi. CiÂncias Humanas , 8 (1), 225 Ã 238. https://doi.org/10.1590/ s1981 81222013000100014 Altieri, M. A. (n.d.). Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty . Retrieved from http://monthlyreview.org/2009/07/01/agroecology small farms and food sovereignty Bennett, N. (2010). Sustainable livelihoods from theory to conser vation practice: An extended annotated bibliography for prospective application of livelihoods approaches in protected area community research. Protected Area and Poverty Reduction Alliance Working Paper , (1), 55. https://doi.org/201012 Berenschot, W. (201 8). Land and Development in Indonesia: Searching for the People's Sovereignty, by John McCarthy and Kathryn Robinson (eds). Bijdragen Tot de Taal , Land En Volkenkunde / Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia , 174 (2 Ã 3), 328 Ã 332. h ttps://doi.org/10.1163/22134379 17402013 Castro, L. F. P. (2016). Agricultura familiar: perspectivas e desafios para o desenvolvimento rural sustentÂ‡vel. Revista UrutÂ‡gua , 174 Ã 189. Retrieved from http://www.periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/EspacoAcademico/article/view/33103/19 154 Chambers, Robert and Conway, G. (1991). Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296 , 296 (Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex), 29. https://doi.org/ISBN 0 903715 58 9 Cifuentes Ã§lvarez, W., JesÂœs PÂŽrez, M., & Gil Casares Mesonero Romanos, M. (2011). MetodologÂ’a de anÂ‡lisis de cadenas productivas bajo el en foque de cadenas de valor. FundaciÂ—n Codespa , 84. Retrieved from https://www.codespa.org/app/uploads/metodologias analisis bajo enfoque cadenas de valor.pdf Davis, D., Kaplinsky, R., & Morris, M. (2018). Rents, Power and Governance in Global Value Chains. Journal of World Systems Research , 24 (1), 43 Ã 71. https://doi.org/10.5195/jwsr.2018.662 De Benoist, A. (1999). What is Sovereignty? Telos Summer , (14), 99 Ã 118.
! ! P" ! Den Steinen, K. von. (2012). Mato Grosso. Durch Central Brasilien , 14 Ã 20. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511695483.004 Doss, C, et al. (2011). Lessons from the Field: Implementing individual asset surveys in Ecuador, Ghana, India and Uganda. Bangalore: Indian Institute of Management Bangalor e. Fao wfp ifad. (n.d.). Agricultural cooperatives: paving the way for food security and rural development Enabling poor rural people to overcome poverty. Retrieved from www.ifad.org FAO, & AgriCord. (2016). Forest and Farm Producer Organizations Operati ng Systems for the SDGs . FAO. (2017). The future of food and agriculture: Trends and challenges. United Nations . https://doi.org/ISBN 978 92 5 109551 5 FAO/OPS. (2017). Panorama de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional en AmÂŽrica Latina y el Caribe . https ://doi.org/978 92 5 309960 3 FAO. (2019). Poner el foco en los agricultores familiares para cumplir los ODS, 1 Ã 28. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/ca4532es/ca4532es.pdf Gary, G., John, H., & Timothy, S. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Re view of International Political Economy , 12 (1), 78 Ã 104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290500049805 Geology. (2019). Brazil. https://geology.com/world/brazil satellite image.shtml Geref fi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy , 12 (1), 78 Ã 104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290500049805 Guanziroli, C., Buainain, A., and Sabbato A. (2013) Family farming in Br azil: evolution between the 1996 and 2006 agricultural censuses, Journal of Peasant Studies, 40:5, 817 843, DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2013.857179 Gubin, A. (2019). Bolsonaro cuestiona a Noruega sobre su interÂŽs en el Amazonas y el destino de los fondos. Retri eved October 9, 2019, from https://es.theepochtimes.com/bolsonaro cuestiona a noruega sobre su interes en el amazonas y el destino de los fondos_514903.html Hillenbrand, E., Karim, N., & Wu, D. (2015). Measuring gender transformative change: A review of li terature and promising practices . Retrieved from
! ! P' ! https://www.care.org/sites/default/files/documents/working_paper_aas_gt_change_me asurem ent_fa_lowres.pdf Hofstede, Geert, et al. (2010). Comparing regional cultures within a country: lessons from Brazil. Cross Cultural Psycology , 41 (3), 336 Ã 352. ICV. (2018a). Proposta de Plataforma de InovaÂÂ‹o em Redes Socioprodutivas, 1 Ã 40. ICV. (2018b). AnÂ‡lise das cadeias de valor prioritÂ‡rias e plano de intervenÂÂ‹o institucional . ICV. (2018c). Monitoramento e Pesquisa nas Redes Socioprodutivas, 0 Ã 37. ICV. (2018d). An Â‡ lise das cadeias de valor priorit Â‡ rias e plano de interven Â Â‹ o institucional. F ortalecendo o papel da agricultura familiar nas cadeias do leite, baba Â u, castanha, cacau, caf ÂŽ e hortifrutigranjeiros Documento base do Projeto "Fortalecendo C adeias Socioprodutivas na Amaz Â™ nia". 1 97 IFPRI. (2020). https://weai.ifpri.info/versions/pro weai/ Consulted on: March 20 th 2020. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). (2016). 201 6 Global food policy report survey . https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896295827 J. Boekema, M. Samsom, G. P. van Be, P. (2002). Coffee and Gastrointestinal Function: Facts and Fiction: A Review. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology , 34 (230), 35 Ã 39. https://doi.org/10.1080/003655299750025525 Kabeer, N. (2005). Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment: A Critical Analysis of the Third Millennium Development Goal. Gender and Development , 13 (1), 13 Ã 24. Koi ca, U. (2016). ImplementaciÂ—n de proyectos de desarrollo econÂ—mico rural . BogotÂ‡: UNDP. Kolshus, K., Loumbeva, N., Matras, F., Salokhe, G., & Treinen, S. (2013). Buenas prÂ‡cticas en la FAO: SistematizaciÂ—n de experiencias para el aprendizaje continuo. Orga nizaciÂ—n de Las Naciones Unidas Para La AlimentaciÂ—n y La Agricultura FAO , 13 , 1 Ã 12. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/ap 784s/ap784s.pdf%0Ahttp://www.hhv.gob.pe/estadis tica/2013/cext_anual_2013.pdf Larsen, H. B. (2014). Governance, quality conventions, and product innovation in a value chain: The case of the Spanish salted fish market. Growth and Change , 45 (3), 412 Ã 429. htt ps://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12052
! ! P$ ! Margareta Amy Lelea, B., Malicha Roba, G., Christinck, A., & Kaufmann, B. (2014). Methodology on Stakeholder Analysis, (December). Retrieved from http://reload globe.net/cms/attachments/article/56/Lelea_et_al_(2014)_Stakehol derGuide_final_we b.pdf Maria, S., & Pereira, P. (n.d.). Agricultura Familiar_desafios e perspectivas de futuro. Retrieved from http://www.mda.gov.br/sitemda/sites/sitemda/files/user_img_1756/Agricultura Familiar_WEB_LEVE.pdf Mato Grosso, http://www.mt.gov.br/geografia . Consulted August 20 2019 Mello, D., & Schmink, M. (2017). Amazon entrepreneurs: Women's economic empowerment and the potential for more sustainable land use practices. Women's Studies Internation al Forum , 65 , 28 Ã 36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2016.11.008 Morales, H., Aguilar stÂ¿en, M. C., & Castellanos lÂ—pez, E. J. (2015). Migracion y Remesas: Estan Afectando la Sustendabilidad de la Agricultura y la Soebrania Alimentaria en Chiapas? Limina r . Estudios Sociales y HumanÂ’sticos , XIII (1), 29 Ã 40. OECD, U. (2017). Interrelationships Between Public Policies, Migration and Development in Dominican Republic (OECD Devel). Paris. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Smith, A., & Movement, T. (2010). Marketing Bu siness Startup . https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0307 10.2010 PEAF MT. https://agriculturafamiliarmt.firebaseapp.com/#o QueE . Consulted on September 20 2019 Prefeitura Municipal ParanaÂ’ta. (2019). Retrieved from://www.paranaita.mt.gov.br/ Rodrigues, C. (2017). Livelihood Strategies Of Family Farmers In The Amazon Frontier Of Mato Grosso, Brazil . University of Florida . Retr ieved from http://ir.obihiro.ac.jp/dspace/handle/10322/3933 Rodrigues, B. D. S., SimÂ‹o, F. C., & Petry, J. F. (2018). PolÂ’ticas PÂœblicas Para Agricultura Familiar no Interior do Estado do Amazonas. Revista de GestÂ‹o e Secretariado , 9 (1), 208 Ã 235. https://d oi.org/10.7769/gesec.v9i1.723 Sabourin, E; Samper, M. S. O. (2015). AmÂŽrica Latina y el Caribe ! : balance , desafÂ’os y perspectivas. ResearchGate , (August). Retrieved from https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/37193/1/S1420694_es.pdf
! ! PO ! Sachs, J. D. (2015). The Age of Sustai nable Development . New York: Columbia Press University. https://doi.org/10.7312/sach17314 Schiffer, E. (2007). The Power Mapping Tool: A Method for the Empirical Research of Power Relationships. IFPRI Discu ssion Paper 00703 , (May), 36. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.75.9011&rep=rep1&type=p df Schneider, S., Salvate, N., & Cassol, A. (2016). Nested Markets, Food Networks, and New Pathways for Rural Development in Brazil. Agriculture , 6 (4), 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture6040061 Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. Journal of Peasant St udies , 36 (1), 171 Ã 196. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150902820503 Sen, A. (2000). Development as Freedom . (P. R. House, Ed.). New York. UK Department for International Development. (2001). Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets THE DEPARTMENT FOR INTERNATI ONAL DEVELOPMENT. Retrieved from www.dfid.gov.uk/ US TC. (2012). United States International Trade Commission Brazil (US TC) ! : Competitive Factors in Brazil Affecting U . S . and Brazilian Agricultural Sales in Selected Third Country Markets, (332). Sachs, J. (2015). The Age of Sustainable Development. Columbia University Press . Stohlgren, T. J., Chase, T. N., Pielke, R. A., Sr, ., Kittel, T. G. F., & Baron, J. S. (1998). Global Change Biology , 4 (5), 495 Ã 504. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365 2486.1998.t01 1 0 0182.x Sutherland, L. A. (2017). New knowledge networks of small scale farmers in Europe's perophery. Land Use Policy , 63 , 428 Ã 439. Via Campesina. (n.d.). QuÂŽ significa soberanÂ’a alimentaria? Retrieved October 17, 2018, from https://viacampesina.org/es/qui gnifica soberanalimentaria/ Watanabe, P. (2019). NÂ‹o podemos ficar sem os recursos do Fundo AmazÂ™nia, diz governador do AM. Retrieved from https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ambiente/2019/08/nao podemos ficar sem os recursos do fundo amazonia diz governador do am.shtml
! ! PP ! Wilson, M., Pavlowich, T., & Cox, M. (2016). Studying common pool resources over time: A longitudinal cas e study of the Buen Hombre fishery in the Dominican Republic. Ambio , 45 (2), 215 Ã 229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280 015 0688 y Year, I., Cooperatives, O. F., & Series, I. B. (2011). Towards self sustaining and market oriented producer organizations The Kon ye Area Farmers' Cooperative. Ysa, T., Albareda, A., & Forberger, S. (2014). What Is Governance. Governance of Addictions in Europe , (December). Zylbersztajn, D. (2014). CoordenaÂÂ‹o e governanÂa de sistemas agroindustriais . O mundo rural no Brasil do sÂŽcul o 21 .
! ! PQ ! Appendices Appendix 1 Entregavel. "Âƒ da terra que a gente tira o alimento e tira o sustento": governanÂa e soberania alimentaria na agricultura familiar na AmazÂ™nia Mato Grossense Paula Bak AntropÂ—loga Estagio: Mestrado em PrÂ‡tica de Desenvolvimento SustentÂ‡vel / Universidade da Florida Produtos entregÂ‡veis 31 de julho 2019 1. ! Email 2. ! Drive no mesmo correo a. ! Caixa de ferram entas (pdf) b. ! MapAtoresKumu (Excel) c. ! StakeholderAnalysis (Excel) d. ! ApresentaÂÂ‹o final Paula Bak (pdf) 3. ! Link KUMU https://kumu.io/ Sign in Stakeholder Analysis Open project Entrar ou projeto e agregar e mudar as coisas que goste m. 4. ! Tokens para mapeamento poder 5. ! Relatorio da actividades
! ! PR ! Appendix 2 " Âƒ da terra que a gente tira o alimento e tira o sustento": governan Â a e soberania alimentaria na agricultura familiar na Amaz Â™ nia Mato Grossense Paula Bak Estagio: Mestrad o em Pr Â‡ tica de Desenvolvimento Sustent Â‡ vel Universidade da Florida Relat Â— rio atividades (17 maio Ã 31 julho) ! Revis Â‹ o de documentos (relat Â— rios, leis, pol Â’ ticas, documentos outras institui Â Â› es) ! Observa Â Â‹ o participante em reuni Â› es da equi pe e atividades realizadas (Primeira Assembleia REPOAMA, tr Â s reuni Â› es de equipe, Dia do Campo Nova Bandeirantes, Dia do Campo REPOAMA, Festival Gastron Â™ mico, reuni Â› es antes do Encontro do Parceiros, Encontro do Parceiros) ! Conversa Â Â› es informais com os assessores t ÂŽ cnicos sobre as diferentes cadeias produtivas ! Visitas a propriedades da Coopervila (Visita com Cristiano REPOAMA , acompanhamento Luan atividade EVE, cinco visitas depois de fazer entrevistas e mapeamentos, acompanhamento a mapeam ento CONEXUS a Walter e Luan) ! Chuva de ideias e reuni Â› es com Benedita, ferramentas e metodologias ! Entrevista a Luan Ã Assessor t ÂŽ cnico Coopervila ! Tr Â s mapeamentos de atores (Equipe ICV, Coordenadores e Diretiva Coopervila Ã dois horas de du ra Â Â‹ o cada um) ! Conversa Â Â› es informais com diferentes agricultores familiares de Coopervila e outras organiza Â Â› es de agricultores ! Acompanhamento a visitas e atividades a alguns assessores t ÂŽ cnicos
! ! Q& ! ! Participa Â Â‹ o no Festival Gastron Â™ mico , Dia de Campo (REPOAMA e Nova Bandeirantes), Encontro de Parceiros e IV Congresso de Agricultura Familiar ! Question Â‡ rio de conhecimento e valoriza Â Â› es da Agricultura Familiar Ã Festival Gastron Â™ mico ! Tr Â s mapeamentos de poder (Equipe ICV, Coo rdenadores e Diretiva Coopervila dois horas de dura Â Â‹ o cada um) ! Entrevista a Marcelo Soares de Oliveira (Chefe do departamento de agricultura familiar) Secretaria de Agricultura Parana Â’ ta ! Entrevista a dois jovens da Coopervila ! Entrevista a Danielle (Nutricionista) Secretaria de Educa Â Â‹ o Parana Â’ ta ! Kumu.io ferramento para mapeamento ! Trabalho com Luan no Plano de Neg Â— cio da Coopervila. ! Trabalho com Jess ÂŽ no Plano de Neg Â— cio da S Â‹ o Br Â‡ s ! Oficina com Jackeline em Plano de Neg Â— cio e outras ferramentas e metodologias
! ! QS ! Appendix 3 CAIXA DE FERRAMENTAS 1 Por: Paula Bak 1. ! OrganizaÂÂ‹o de atividades a. ! Bem vi da b. ! Ordem do dia c. ! Expectativas, esperanÂas e medos d. ! Antes, agora, depois e. ! Acordos f. ! Objetivos g. ! IntroduÂÂ›es 2. ! EvacuaÂÂ›es do dia/atividade Âƒ importante fazer uma evacuaÂÂ‹o do dia/atividade, para ou facilitador e tambÂŽm para as pessoas participantes. VocÂ pode fazer isso de muitas formas> verbal, escrito, desenhos, etc. Se ÂŽ uma atividade de vÂ‡rios dias, pode fazer diferentes papeis com os dias e desenhar caras tristes e felizes, e ao final do dia cada pessoa escreve uma "x" em a cara que eles sentem que representa seu estado do animo. TambÂŽm pode fazer unos cartÂ›es que dizem duas estrelas e um desejo. Cada estrela ÂŽ uma representaÂÂ‹o das coisas que se fizeram bem o que a gente gosto. E no desejo ÂŽ uma coisa que a gente quer fazer no futuro, aprender na prÂ—xima ativ idade. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! 1 (Baseado em experiÂncias prÂ—prias de trabalho comunitÂ‡rio, experiÂncia laboral, e capacitaÂÂ›es de manejo do grupo)
! ! Q# ! 3. ! Compromissos e despedida Quando vocÂ faz compromissos com os assistentes multiplica ou valor da atividade. Âƒ melhor se vocÂ pode escrever os compromissos para que a gente pode visualizar. Fazer um papei grande com os compromissos e as pessoas respo nsÂ‡veis. 4. ! Multiplex realidades Âƒ importante entender que existem multiplex realidades sobre uma mesma coisa ou problema. a. ! Uma forma de conhecer as multiplex realidades ÂŽ com um exercÂ’cio chamado Janela de Johari Ela(e)s sabem Ela(e)s nÂ‹o sabem Nos sabemo s Nos nÂ‹o sabemos b. ! Se eu fora vocÂ, minha maior preocupaÂÂ‹o seria... E a gente tem que terminar a frase. 5. ! Design Thinking / Desenho de ideias Âƒ uma ferramenta originalmente para criar um produto. Mas, ÂŽ usado para desenhar projetos e estratÂŽgias, ÂŽ u ma ferramenta participativa. Tem 5 etapas, 1. ! ObservaÂÂ‹o Ã As pessoas tÂm que observar ou problema as situaÂÂ›es. Que, como, quando, quem, onde. Estas sÂ‹o perguntas chaves para na primeira etapa. 2. ! Idear Ã As pessoas tÂm que pensar em como elas vai solucionar ou problemas, na ideia ÂŽ que pensem em muitas formas de fazer isso. Podem ser ideias fora do comum e coisas normais. Responder a que, como, quando, quem, onde. Entre mais ideias, muito melhor. 3. ! Definir Ã Depois de ter uma lista de ideias, entre todas as pe ssoas vai definir quais sÂ‹o o qual ÂŽ na ideia mais forte para solucionar no problema as situaÂÂ›es.
! ! Q" ! 4. ! ProtÂ—tipo Ã Uma vez as pessoas jÂ‡ definem na ideia tem que fazer um protÂ—tipo dessa ideia. Por exemplo, se ou problema ÂŽ que as pessoas nÂ‹o escrevem os prod utos que produzem e que vendem, na ideia tem que ser alguma ferramenta pra isso. Se definirem que ÂŽ em um papei vai a escrever isso, entÂ‹o ou protÂ—tipo tem que ser como vai ser esse papei, que vai ter escrito. 5. ! AvaliaÂÂ‹o Ã Depois fazem na ultima etapa que ÂŽ avaliar se no protÂ—tipo se funciona e que coisas tem que mudar para ser melhor. 6. ! Quando vocÂ estÂ‡ fazendo uma atividade e nÂ‹o tem seguridade que a gente entendeu as instruÂÂ›es, outra pessoa da equipe pode perguntar algo como se nÂ‹o entendera. Muitas vez es a gente que participa tem vergonha de fazer perguntas. TambÂŽm pode fazer perguntas depois das instruÂÂ›es. 7. ! Mapeamento de atores VocÂ senta as pessoas no cÂ’rculo. Na primeira coisa ÂŽ explicar ou objetivo da atividade, conhecer os atores que tem presenÂ a (nas situaÂÂ›es, problemÂ‡tica, etc.) e entender os relacionamentos que tem esses atores e entre eles. Depois vocÂ vai falando, qual ÂŽ ou ator mais importante, o nome todos os atores que participam. E pode fazer todas as perguntas que vocÂ ache sejam impo rtantes para cumprir seu objetivo. Nas tabelas sÂ‹o uma ferramenta para escrever toda a informaÂÂ›es/ 1. ! Atores socias Atores socias FunÂÂ‹o 1 2 3 4
! ! Q' ! 5 6 De 1 a 5 (sendo 1 baixa e 5 ÂŽ alta) classifique cada participan te de acordo com a importÂ‰ncia que tÂm na cadeia de valor e com o nÂ’vel de influÂncia nas decisÂ›es que vocÂ toma como cooperativa. Escreva em uma frase como eles influenciam. 2. ! ImportÂ‰ncia e influÂncia Atores sÂ—cias ImportÂ‰ncia InfluÂncia 1 2 Marque com um X em qual das decisÂ›es cada parte interessada tem participaÂÂ‹o. Faz uma tabela que tem diferentes atividades que pode ter um ator. 8. ! Mapeamento de poder Materiais: trÂs grandes folhas de papel, marcadores, 16 figuras de plÂ‡stico de cor e forma diferentes, o maior nÂœmero possÂ’vel de discos coloridos e cartÂ›es de aÂÂ‹o (olho observando, boca dando conselhos, mÂ‹o tomada de decisÂ›es e moeda de financiamento) . Esta atividade serÂ‡ realizada com cinco pessoas por vez. Os participantes desenha rÂ‹o um mapa de governanÂa, nÂ‹o se trata de um mapa geogrÂ‡fico, mas de um esboÂo dos diferentes atores sociais que se sobrepÂ›em nas atividades relacionadas
! ! Q$ ! Âˆ cadeia de valor de hortifrutigranjeiros. Eu vou ter a seguinte tabela, em que vou escrever as carac terÂ’sticas de cada parte interessada. Nome de atores sociais Cor e forma ExtensÂ‹o de aÂÂ›es Altura do poder ComentÂ‡rios 1. ! Defina os atores sociais 2. ! Escolha a figura que representarÂ‡ cada atores sociais 3. ! Desenhe os atores sociais no pa pel e coloque a figura que a representa 4. ! Cartas de aÂÂ‹o: vou mencionar cada uma das cartas de aÂÂ‹o, eles terÂ‹o que desenhar as aÂÂ›es que cada parte interessada executa 5. ! PeÂa para comentar sobre as aÂÂ›es 6. ! Cada grupo tem que colocar moedas nas diferentes ator es sociais, eles podem adicionar a quantidade de moedas que eles querem para cada atores sociais, pode haver torres com a mesma altura 7. ! Fazer perguntas: Estas sÂ‹o algumas perguntas guia, mas que serÂ‹o melhor definidas durante o prÂ—prio exercÂ’cio â€¢ ! Qual part e interessada tem mais poder? â€¢ ! De onde vem a poder? â€¢ ! Estes dois tÂm a mesma quantidade de poder, ÂŽ o mesmo tipo de poder? â€¢ ! Em quem eles exercem poder? â€¢ ! Esse ator nÂ‹o tem poder algum, por quÂ 9. ! Canvanaizer Ã Ferramenta para comeÂar a fazer planos de negocio. https://canvanizer.com/ 10. ! Kumu.io Ã
! ! QO ! Ferramenta para fazer mapeamento de atores (stakeholder analysis). https://kumu.io/
! ! QP ! Appendix 4 Activ i ties Here is a table that shows activities I participated on during my field practicum and activities I developed. Activity Description REPOAMA 1st Assembly They had the first assembly where REPOAMA was legally founded. I accompanied this event. Technical v isits ECOVIDA During my first week, ECOVIDA did some technical visits to ParanaÂ’ta and Alta Floresta and I accompanied the team in each visit. Technical visits Coopervila Luan, ICV team member in charge of Coopervila did a visit every week and I went with him. Workshops CotriguaÂu and Colniza I went to CotriguaÂu and Colniza, I observe and participate in the workshops Benedita and Jesse did during these days . Encontro de Parceiros I participate in the meeting ICV had with all the family farming organiza tions they work with. Gastronomic Festival I assisted the festival and developed some surveys for ICV. Team Meetings I participated in each team meeting ICV had for the three months of my practicum. Team workshops I developed three different workshops a s a request of specific team members of ICV in topics they wanted or needed. Stakeholder Mapping Developed three of these mappings for my field practicum. Power Mapping Developed three of these mappings for my field practicum. Semi structured Interview s Developed seven interviews for my field practicum. Surveys Developed 30 surveys for ICV related to family farming consumption. Dia do campo Attended and participated in three different Dia do Campo. Table 1. Activities Paula participated as a guest and also activities she did while being in the field.
! ! QQ ! Appendix 5 Actor TYPE DESCRIPTION AGAF @associacaoagaf Private Promote and create value for Family Agriculture and local gastronomy. ANV ISA http://portal.anvisa.gov.br Public Brazilian agency that certifies business and process foods. Bancos Private The banks that have offices in Alta Floresta and ParanaÂ’ta are private, they offer limited opp ortunities for family farmers. CEASA/MT http://ceasa.mt.gov.br Public They are the in charge of centralizing the supply of fruits and vegetables to the state of Mato Grosso. CONAB https://www.conab.gov.br Public Creates programs that promotes markets for agricultural products. Conexsus/ PAA https://ppa.org.br ONG Partners in new projects related to family farming markets. Consumidor Final Individuals Population of Alta Floresta and ParanaÂ’ta. Coopervila https://www.facebook.com/coopervila.horti frutigranjeiros. 1/about?lst=768590018%3 A100007645062321%3A1575317484 Cooperative Family agriculture cooperative, it has 20 family members. They produce and sell vegetables and fruits. Coopernova http://www.coopernova.com Coo perative A cooperative based on Terra Nova, Mato Grosso, that Works with dairy farming. Contador Private A person hired by Coopervila to do book keeping. EMBRAPA https://www.embrapa.br Public Public company that w orks toward developing an authentic Brazilian agricultural practice. EMPAER http://www.empaer.mt.gov.br Public Public institution that Works towards generating knowledge, technology and extension work for rura l sustainable development, and as a priority they work with family farming. Escola Private The public local school in ParanaÂ’ta, the Secretaria de EducaÂÂ‹o. The tie they have with Coopervila is directly related to the PAA Programa de AdquisiÂaÂ‹o do Alim entos . FAH Private Private company that works around tourism, gastronomy in Alta Floresta.
! ! QR ! Familias agricultoras Individual Families that live in ParanaÂ’ta, every cooperative has a different number of families that belong to the cooperative. Fornecedor as Private Business that sell different products for agriculture like seeds and other supplies. Fundo Amazonia http://www.fundoamazonia.gov.br/pt/home/ Private Private fund created by two European countries to support projects that promote sustainable development in the Amazon. Governo Estadual http://www.mt.gov.br Public General state government, conformed by different secretaries and ministries. Governo Fe deral https://www.gov.br/pt br Public General federal government of Brazil, includes ministeries, the participants name it beside the ministries. ICV https://www.icv.org.br NGO NGO based on Mato Grosso that work in forestry and Family agriculture. IDESAM https://idesam.org Public Develops projects that support the sustainable use of natural resources of the Brazilian Amazon. Based on the state of Amazonas. IFMT http://ifmt.edu.br Public Education institute based in Alta Floresta that offers programs in agronomy, forestry engineer, and others related with agriculture. IOV http://www.iov.org.br NGO Organization based in Alta Floresta that works with family farmers organizations in sustainable development. They have programs of micro credit, marketing of local products, and created a space called SISCOS to sell local products. ISPN NGO Organization that works in social and environmental Development in the Amazon. MAPA http://www.agricultura.gov.br Public Ministry of Agriculture, has decision and policy making power, and implements programs at a natio nal level. MAPA Estadual Public Ministry of Agriculture, has decision and policy making power, and implements programs in the state of Mato Grosso. Mercados Private General store s that sell fruits, vegetables among other commodities and products. ON G's ONG Different NGOs with presence in the north region of Mato Grosso state. Outras universidades Private Universities and research centers from Brazil or other countries that have interest in family farming and conservation. Prefeitura ParanaÂ’ta https://www.paranaita.mt.gov.br Public Municipal public institution, implements policies, programs, and have different secretaries.
! ! R& ! Receita Federal http://receita .economia.gov.br Public Public arm oh the MinistÂŽrio da Fazenda . REPOAMA Network Community network conformed by 14 associations/cooperatives/groups f family farmers. The final goal is to become an organic certification network in Mato Grosso. SEAF http://www.seaf.mt.gov.br Public Secretary in charge of family farming processes, laws and policies in the state of Mato Grosso. Secretaria de EducaÂÂ‹o https://www.paranaita.mt.gov.br/Secretari as/Educacao Public PNAE Plan Nacional de AlimentaÂÂ‹o Escolar . The Secretaria has in charge the education and nutrition programs in a local level. SEFAZ http://w ww5.sefaz.mt.gov.br Public State government, in charged with the administration of public accounts and resources. SEMAS https://www.semas.pa.gov.br Public Secretary in charge o f policies, laws, programs of na tural resources. Supermercados Machado https://www.redemachado.com.br Private Supermarkets Machado, private company that sells different goods in some municipalities of Mato Grosso. STR Private Union of ru ral workers that work on the same objectives, they fight for equity and equality in the rural areas. Each member of a cooperative/ association/ group decided whether they wanted to be part or not of the STR. UNEMAT http://portal.unemat.br Public Education institute based in Alta Floresta that offers programs in agronomy, forest engineer, and others related with agriculture. USINA Private Private hydroelectric in ParanaÂ’ta, when they built it, the comp any made social responsibility development projects for the community, as a consequence, Coopervila was born as a cooperative that harvest fruits and vegetables for the community. VISA Public National agency that certifies business and processed products . Table 1. Characterization of actors identified by the ICV PC, ICV TM, and Coopervila during the mapping activities.
! ! RS ! Appendix 6 Stakeholder Analysis Key Actors and Major Results of Stakeholder Mapping According to ICV's Project Coordinator (ICV PC) Partners and International Donor (n=3) The ICV PC explained that both Conexsus and PPA (both partners of ICV in a new project), had an indirect and 'one way' relationship with Coopervila . These organizations are donors for a project ICV is managing that s upports activities on which Coopervila is involved. The international donor was Fundo Amazonia . This fund has contributed to the Redes Socio Produtivas project and it was a fundamental actor during the development of projects related with deforestation and family agriculture in the Brazilian Amazon. a. ! Community Based Cooperatives, Associations, Groups, and Networks (n=3) The three community based organizations are Coopervila , Coopernova, and REPOAMA. Coopernova was a former client of Coopervila , and is a sour ce of supplies. REPOAMA, is an organic participatory certification network created by 14 family farmers ' organizations ( Coopervila being one of these) jointly with ICV. The relationship between REPOAMA and Coopervila is new, the cooperative itself is part of the director boards and some farms are in transition to organic farming and hopefully get certified by REPOAMA. b. ! Public Institutions (n=2) The Prefeitura de ParanaÂ’ta and the SecretarÂ’a de Agricultura de ParanaÂ’ta have a direct and two way relationship with Coopervila . These institutions chose them as one of the family farmers cooperatives that will provide 80% of the fruits and vegetables the local schools of ParanaÂ’ta consume. This arrangement was formalized through the public policy of PNAE that is su pervised by the Secretaria de Agricultura and the SecretarÂ’a de
! ! R# ! EducaÂÂ‹o de ParanaÂ’ta . For the remaining six public institutions, ICV PC does not visualize any direct relationship with Coopervila . Those actors have executive presence and power that may aff ect Coopervila in the future since they represent specific interests and pathways of the government in power. c. ! NGOs (n=3) ICV has relationships with other actors such as IOV and IDESAM. However, these relationships are less visible to ICV PC. These organiz ations are working on similar topics, but they do not collaborate on projects. d. ! Markets (n=4) The three markets identified are the FAH, AGAF, and Supermercados Machado , with the last one being the only official market. FAH and AGAF represent another market sector that promotes tourism and local gastronomy. These markets were clients before Coopervila became a beneficiary of PNAE. Currently, the Cooperative does not have enough production to sell to any other market. However, Coopervila keeps healthy relatio nships with their former clients for future opportunities. The ICV PC explains that ICV has relationships with some of the banks in Alta Floresta. However, they do not have any projects or programs that involve the banks as an actor with actions towards th e work ICV does in the region. Key Actors According to ICV TM Members (ICV TM) a. ! Community Based Cooperatives, Associations, Groups, and Networks (n=2) ICV TM identified Coopervila (representing all the associations, groups and cooperatives with whom they w ork) and REPOAMA as the two community based organizations. For the members of ICV TM, REPOAMA is going to change the relationships between actors
! ! R" ! because REPOAMA will allow the farmer organizations to have more power by being united and deciding together h ow to manage the certification process. At the moment the mapping activity was done, they explained that the relationship between Coopervila and REPOAMA was direct. b. ! NGOs (n=1) ICV TM identified ICV as one of the actors . ICV sustain a relationship with Coo pervila through the the project Redes Socio Productivas, prividing training, information, and they are the intermediaries when the cooperative needs to purchase supplies. However, ICV does not have a strong relationship with the other NGOs: looking for par tnerships with other NGOs that work in the same area and same or similar topics could enhance the activities and the impact all the NGOs have by working together. With the other actors, ICV as an organization has an indirect relationship, even if the ICV T M may have contact with the actors due to the community and local level work they do. c. ! Markets (n=2) The members of the ICV TM identified Mercados and Consumidor Final as the two key actors inside the markets' sphere. They said that they did not want to na me specifics Mercados because this situation has been changing over time. With REPOAMA established as the organic network with the ongoing arrangement with PNAE, they are aware some of the Mercados will be intermittent at best. They did identify the Consum idor Final , even while the relationship is indirect in nature. Their rationale is that the Consumidor Final can, through their preferences, impact the production and consumption of the produce Coopervila harvests. d. ! Private Actors (n=4)
! ! R' ! The ICV TM identifi ed the Bancos and the Fornecedores as two private type of actors that had some relationship with Coopervila and ICV. For them, the relationship with the Bancos is indirect because they play a role in the management of money and financial transactions, incl uding decision making power over financial opportunities. However, at this moment, they do not have financial responsibilities with the Bancos , so the relationships are indirect and invisible at this time. The relationship with Fornecedores is intermitten t, active only when Coopervila needs to buy supplies. e. ! Public Institutions (n=11) ICV TM identified 11 public institutions; however, they explained that Coopervila does not necessarily engage directly with all of them. Nonetheless, the actors are part of a system and they play by their rules. The Governo Federal and Governo Estadual have policies and programs in place, and Coopervila has to work within those policies and programs. With SEFAZ, they have a relationship through the accountant because SEFAZ does auditing and taxes . With EMPAER , they have direct contact as both Coopervila and the ICV TM are working on the DeclaraÂÂ‹o de AptidÂ‹o ao Pronaf DAP, an important document for family farming in Brazil, and EMPAER is the public institution in charge. With the STR, the Receita Federal , and EMBRAPA, the ICV TM discussed that Coopervila does not have a direct relationship. They are related due to national programs, family farmers' needs, and overall Brazilian laws indirectly. However, Coopervila does have a di rect but intermittent relationship with CONAB as it buys fruits and vegetables when they do not produce the amount they need to cover the demand from the Escola . This situation brings the next three actors, the Prefeitura de ParanaÂ’ta , the SECEDU, and the SecretarÂ’a de Agricultura de ParanaÂ’ta . As mentioned earlier in the ICV PC, these three
! ! R$ ! actors have a relationship with Coopervil a due to the PNAE that buys the produce from the Cooperative to feed the students from the local schools. The relationship bet ween ICV, the Prefeitura, and the Secretaria da Agricultura is based on them working together to understand better the public policies (for example, ATER) that affect and can benefit family farming. ICV TM characterized this as a two way relationship becau se ICV works with the Prefeitura to have a better understanding of the policies. Then the Prefeitura puts in practice the policies or different programs they have, and the cooperatives, association, and groups can be beneficiaries. f. ! Individuals (n=2) ICV TM identified the Familias Agricultoras and the Contador as the two key individual actors. First, the Familias Agricultoras are the main reason why Coopervila and other farmers organizations exist, they are the key actors in this project. Second, with the Co ntador they have a direct relationship; he is the one who works with the cooperative on the financial aspects of cooperative functioning. Key Actors According to Coopervila a. ! Community Based Cooperatives, Associations, Groups, and Networks (n=2) Coopervila i dentified themselves and Coopernova as the two community based organizations. Coopernova is the cooperative that sells supplies to other cooperatives as does Coopervila . They only have contact when required to provide seeds and/or other supplies for member s of Coopervila . b. ! NGOs (n=1) Coopervila identified ICV as the only NGO that had any presence in ParanaÂ’ta, and for that reason, was perceived as the the only one that has a relationship with Coopervila . They used
! ! RO ! the word fundamental to characterize the imp ortance of the relationship with ICV during the development of the cooperative. c. ! Markets (n=3) The prior relationships with the markets ( Delbianqui , Coopernova) have been put on hold at the moment due to their contract supply of food and vegetables to loca l schools (the Escola ) under the PNAE. As a consequence, they do not have enough production for the demand of all their markets. d. ! Private Actor (n=1) Coopervila explained the relationships with the hydroelectric USINA. They divide this relationship into two stages. The first one relates with the first USINA stage, when they started the construction of the hydroelectric and part of the project, and they developed and worked with the people of ParanaÂ’ta to create better roads, cooperatives, and associations of farmers, schools, parks, etc. After this stage was over, the second USINA relationship stage emerged. At this point they did not work together with the community. That is why the cooperative explains that there are two kinds of relationships that evolved with them and at the moment they do not have any contact with USINA. e. ! Public Institutions (n=6) Two of the six public institutions identified are sta te universities: UNEMAT and IFMT. At present, Coopervila does not have a relationship with them, however, they expect communication to improve, hopefully leading to partnerships with the universitties. Farmers' plots have served as field work sites for som e students, but that is the extent of their relationship. A similar arrangement exists with EMBRAPA, the national research institution in Brazil.
! ! RP ! In the case of the Escola and the Prefeitura, they asscociate closely through PNAE and other public programs carried out with the local government. Althought, the members of Coopervila recognize they are important, in their value chain they do not consider they have a close relationship due to the nature of their relationship, it can change at any moment. It has strengthened because of the PNAE, but they have in mind that if thar public policy changes, the relationship changes too. f. ! Individual Actor (n=1) Coopervila identified the Familias Agricultoras as the core actor and the reason why they exist. They say that the relationships between families and the cooperative vary, some families are more participant than others, but overall, most of the families that are part of Coopervila participate and benefit from belonging to a cooperative.
! ! RQ ! Appendix 7 Power Mappi n g Figures Figure 1: Value given from the ICV PC to the actors in relation to interest and influence they have for Coopervila to succeed. Light green represents the score given for influence, and the darker green is the interest those actors have. Only two of the public institutions have some interest in the success of Coopervila; however, they all have a high rank according to their influence (for example, SEMA and ANVISA). % S % " % ' S % $ $ S S $ % # S $ % S & % " % " # $ S # % " S ' ' " $ $ # $ " $ $ :B:< :NEDI: 8/-@)> ()-+W5>X;;: ())*+,-)./ ())*+,.01/ <:TX(,0>A/10-) <5-C)!:=/Y)-0/ D(E 7:;: ;,+G+0A5,/!;/,/-/HA/ 96;Z:7: I6:< I+@,+A/,0/!C+!6C5@/J/)!;/,/-/HA/ I6<:[ I67: D-A+,+>A D-G15+-@+ % $ & & $ # % ' $ $ $ # % $ $ S & $ % ' $ $ " % ' S $ & & $ ' % $ % $ $ ' % $ % $ $ ' & ' % $ $ % $ ' % $ % $ 8/-@)> (ZN:8 ()-A/C), ())*+,.01/ ()->5=0C),!<0-/1 6789:;: 67;:69 =1010/>!:?,0@51A),/> <),-+@+C),+> B).+,-)!6>A/C5/1 B).+,-)!<+C+,/1 D(E 7+,@/C) ZNB> ;,+G+0A5,/!;/,/-/HA/ 9+@+0A/!<+C+,/1 96;Z:7: I6:< I+@,+A/,0/!C+!6C5@/J/)!;/,/-/HA/ I6<:[ IF9 D-A+,+>A D-G15+-@+
! ! RR ! Figure 2 : Value given from the ICV TM to the actors in relation to interest and influence they have for Coopervila to succeed. Dark blue: interest; light blue: influence. Figure 3 : Power ranking of NGO actors by three groups determined by their range of actions and source of power. It describes the actor, participants, and the score each participant gave to an actor determined by their range of actions and source of power. Figure 4 Actors, participants, and the score each participant assigned to Education and Research group of actors determined by their range of actions and source of power. Each color blue represents the score of the participants S' S' S' S' S' S& S& S& S& S& S" ' ' ' ' & $ S& S$ #& #$ "& "$ '& D(E DZE D26I:7 DI;N ZNB\> T+0?UA!)G!F)V+, D(E%F7 D(E%;( ())*+,.01/ " ' # " S # " ' # & S # " ' $ O P Q R S& D(E%F7 D(E!%;( ())*+,.01/ T+0?UA!)G!F)V+, D<7F Z5A,/>!5-0.+,>0C/C+>!+!@+-A,)>!C+!*+>450>/ MN67:F
! ! S&& ! Figure 5 : Extent of power (as represented by the height of the power tower) assigned to each actor by ICV PC. Figure 6 : Extent of power (as represented by the height of the power tower ) assigned to each actor by ICV TM. #' #' #' #' #' S# S# S# S# S# SS SS SS SS SS SS ' S & $ S& S$ #& #$ "& :NEDI: (6:I:X7F (ZN:8 B).+,-)!<+C+,/1 7:;: 6>@)1/ ;,+G+0A5,/!C+!;/,/-/HA/ I6(:B I6(62M EDI: 67;:69 B).+,-)!6>A/C5/1 7:;:!%!6>A/C5/1 I6:< I6<:[ I67:I 6789:;: 9+@+0A/!<+C+,/1 T+0?UA!)G!*)V+,!A)V+, D(E%;( S$ S$ S& S& S& S& S& S& $ $ ' ' " " " # & & # ' O Q S& S# S' SO (6:I:X7F (ZN:8 6>@)1/ B).+,-)!6>A/C5/1 B).+,-)!<+C+,/1 9+@+0A/!<+C+,/1 I6(62M I6<:[ :NEDI: 7:;: I6:< I67:I 6789:;: ;,+G+0A5,/!;/,/-/HA/ I6(:B 67;:69 7:;:!%!6>A/C5/1 T+0?UA!)G!*)V+,!A)V+, D(E%F7
! ! S&S ! Figure 7 : Extent of power (as represented by the height of the power tower) assigned to each actor by Coopervila. Figure 8. Extent of power (as represented by the height of the power tower) assigned to each actor by by ICV PC (yellow), ICV TM (orange), and Coopervila (green). #$ #& #& #& SP SP SP SP S$ S$ S$ S$ S$ S" S" S" # & & $ S& S$ #& #$ "& I6:< (ZN:8 6>@)1/ I6(62M :NEDI: B).+,-)!<+C+,/1 7:;: 9+@+0A/!<+C+,/1 (6:I:X7F 67;:69 B).+,-)!6>A/C5/1 I6<:[ I67:I ;,+G+0A5,/!;/,/-/HA/ I6(:B EDI: 6789:;: 7:;:!%!6>A/C5/1 T+0?UA!)G!A)V+,!*)V+, ())*+,.01/ & S& #& "& '& $& O& P& :NEDI: (6:I:X7F (ZN:8 6789:;: 67;:69 6>@)1/ B).+,-)!6>A/C5/1 B).+,-)!<+C+,/1 7:;: 7:;:!%!6>A/C5/1 ;,+G+0A5,/!;/,/-/HA/ 9+@+0A/!<+C+,/1 I6:< I+@,+A/,H/!C+!:?,0@51A5,/]L I+@,+A/,0/!C+!6C5@/JK) I6<:[ I67:I EDI: F+/= ;( ())*+,.01/
! ! S ! Figure 9 : Actor, participants, and the score each participant assigned to Market actors determined by their range of actions and source of power. Figure 10 : Actor, participants, and the sco re each participant assigned to Partners and Donors actors determined by their range of actions and source of power. S$ S$ S' S& S$ S$ S& S$ "R "R "R S# "R "R S# "R #& #& #& #& #& #& #& #& & S& #& "& '& $& O& P& Q& :B:< ())*+,-)./ ()->5=0C),!<0-/1 6>@)1/ <:T 7+,@/C)> I6(62M I5*+,=+,@/C)>!7/@U/C) D(E%F7 D(E%;( ())*+,.01/ S' S& & S& #' SP & $ S& S$ #& #$ "& "$ '& D(E%F7 D(E%;( ())*+,.01/ T+0?UA!)G!*)+,!A)V+, ()-+W5>X!;;: <5-C)!:=/Y)-0/
! ! S&" ! Figure 11 : Actor, participants, and the score each participant assigned to actors from the Family Farmers Associations/Cooperatives/Group s/Networks group, as determined by their range of actions and source of power. Figure 12 : Describes the actor, the three participants, and the score each participant gave to Private Actors determined by their range of actions and source of power. Each c olor blue represents the score of the participants #& #& SS # SO SO SO $ "& "& #& $ & S& #& "& '& $& O& P& ())*+,.01/ =010/>!:?,0@51A),/> 96;Z:7: IF9 T+0?UA!)G!*V+,!A)V+, D(E%F7 D(E%;( ())*+,.01/ S& " S& S$ S$ O S # S& S# Q #& & $ S& S$ #& #$ "& "$ '& 8/-@)> ()-A/C), <),-+@+C),/> MIDN: T+0?UA!)G!*)V+,!A)V+, D(E!F7 D(E!;( ())*+,.01/