Citation
Effectiveness of an Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Extension Program for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Agroforestry in Southern Bahia, Brazil

Material Information

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

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Agricultural land ( jstor )
Agroforestry ( jstor )
Cacao ( jstor )
Community forestry ( jstor )
Environmental conservation ( jstor )
Farmers ( jstor )
Forest communities ( jstor )
Forest conservation ( jstor )
Forests ( jstor )
Land use ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Embargo Date:
8/31/2006

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












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
















By

KATHLEEN R. PAINTER


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

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Kathleen R. Painter















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

the success of my research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

rural communities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

and her knowledge of doing research in Bahia.









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

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

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

collaboration with Bob.

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

analyses.

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

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

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

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

Clingerman, Miriam Wyman, Lin Cassidy and Brian Daley.

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

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

and St. Mary's College of Maryland.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER

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

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

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


v









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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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
















LIST OF TABLES

Table pge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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















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

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

By

Kathleen R. Painter

August 2006

Chair: Karen Kainer
Major Department: Interdisciplinary Ecology

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

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

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

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

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

agroecological practices, organic certification, increased family incomes, and

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

This study addresses the following research questions: Are families that

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

of landholding influence project implementation? Are project results consistent in

different types of communities?

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

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









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

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

analyze the effect of participation and other socioeconomic variables on program

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

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

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

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

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

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

Successfully implemented agroecological practices included the use of organic

fertilizers and composting, contour erosion barriers, diversification of agroforestry

systems, and the elimination of burning and agrochemicals.

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

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

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

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

as a community-managed reserve.

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

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

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

allow forest regrowth to create forest reserves.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

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

conservation of endangered ecosystems will require the participation of their residents

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

Conservation programs have used various strategies to enlist local participation in

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

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

which include both a conservation component and an economic development component

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

ICDPs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

failed to produce.

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

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

Desenvolvimento Agroecologico de Comunidades Rurais (Organization for

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









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

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

Atlantic Forest of Southern Bahia. Land reform communities are communities

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

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

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

generations.

In 1995, Jupara began collaborating with WWF to promote diversified

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

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

project, including the implementation of organic agricultural practices and the

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

agroforestry systems. As with many conservation projects, funding constraints

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

goals were met (Buschbacher in prep.).

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

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

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

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

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

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

communities.









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

agroecological practices, their land use patterns, including implementation of

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

which might affect their ability to meet the project goals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

older communities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

compared to land use data collected through interviews.

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

the three previous chapters.














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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

environmentally fragile lands (Scherr 2000).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

resource management practices and intensify production systems in a way that

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

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

and Development Projects," or ICDPs.

The conservation component of an ICDP might include protecting forests or

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

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

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

environmentally benign way. Development projects often include ecotourism or

agroforestry.

This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of an ICDP for forest

conservation and sustainable agroforestry, the Jupara Agroecology Project in

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

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

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

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

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

community commitment to forest conservation.

Agroforestry Adoption

Literature on agroforestry adoption evaluates farmers' abilities to implement

agroforestry systems and other conservation agricultural practices. Adoption studies

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









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

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

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

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

Burt 1997).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

membership in an NGO positively influenced agroforestry adoption by males but

negatively influenced adoption by females.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

participating neighbors of successful participants were also likely to adopt

agroforestry.









Most studies on adoption of agroforestry practices by smallholders in the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simmons et al. 2002).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from this literature on the adoption of agroforestry practices.









Several authors have identified a need for further research on agroforestry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

deforestation and destructive agricultural practices, and concluded that new

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

terms of agricultural practices and deforestation.

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

several specific practices. While the practices themselves may be environmentally

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









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

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

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

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

agroforestry practices are likely to also conserve forests.

Integrated Conservation and Development Projects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

newcomers to its perimeter.

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

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

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

that they felt supported local livelihoods successfully enough to slow encroachment

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

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

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

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









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

international biodiversity conservation funding. Similar assertions are made by

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

efforts in the Central African Republic.

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

families maintaining highly diversified agroforestry systems in the buffer zone of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

economic benefits. Preliminary environmental data show that regions adopting the

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

neighboring regions from 1995-1998.

Both supporters and critics of Integrated Conservation and Development

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

variety of types of communities.

Research questions

This project provides a comprehensive evaluation of the outcomes of one

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

increased family income (Buschbacher in prep.).









Participatory mapping and interviews with producers in two Jupara

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

research questions:

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

Study Area

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

generated considerable interest within the conservation community for their potential

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biological Reserve.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

redistribution among landless settlers (Buschbacher in prep.).

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

Southern Bahia maintain diversified agroforestry systems rather than cabruca

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

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

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

and traditional communities.

Jupara Project History

Jupari is a Brazilian community development organization with origins in the

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

both agrarian reform communities and traditional agricultural communities in

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

family agriculture that would both promote forest conservation among landowners in

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

area (Buschbacher in prep.).

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

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

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

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

management, and diversification of agroforestry systems. Target practices are

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

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

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

the training was oriented more toward improvement of current agroforestry systems

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

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

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

certification (Buschbacher in prep.).









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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

cacao from the region.

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

communities are implementing organic agricultural practices and meeting the goals

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

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

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

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

biophysical characteristics. Families within communities also differ in size,

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

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

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

meeting the conservation goals set forth by Jupara.

Selection of Study Sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

communities.

These communities have strong community leaders, which facilitated both

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

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

interviews in a community in which Jupara has not worked.


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









Methods

Description of Study Sites

Fortaleza

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

landholdings are individually managed.

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

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

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

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









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

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

organic certification through the Jupara program.

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

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

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

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

lacking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lagoa Santa

Lagoa Santa is a traditional agricultural community located in the municipality

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

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

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

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

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









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

remains in this area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

participants from the neighboring quilombo Campo da Amancio were also

interviewed for this study to increase the sample size.

Farmers in Lagoa Santa maintain diverse agroforestry systems similar to those

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

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

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

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

one family maintains organic certification through the Jupard project.

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

and regular public transportation services.

Field Methods

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

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

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

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









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

visit of about 10 days.

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

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

cooperative were considered participants, past members were considered former

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

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

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

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

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

with non-participants.

Interview content included questions concerning family demographics,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

Size of landholding


Data Analysis

Participation

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

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

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

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

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

position in any of these organizations.

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

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

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

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


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

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

Income
Diversity of products
On and off farm income









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

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

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

heavily weighted, as indicated in Table 2-3.

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

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

shown in Figure 2-2.

Because the development of the participation score was somewhat subjective,

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

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

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

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

components and weighting the components randomly. A correlation matrix was

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

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

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

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

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

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

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











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


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

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


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


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


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


Visited another Jupara Community

Participated in a Demonstrative Plot
or community plot.

Participated in a "Mutirao"
(Community work group)

Member of Coopasb

Member of another organization

Woman is also a member.

Has held a leadership position
in one of these organizations


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

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


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

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

0 = no, 1 = yes

0 = no, 1 = yes

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










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


50
A

40

A
a a
30

A

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

U 0 O Non-Member
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Community 1 = Fortaleza, 2 = Lagoa Santa


Use of Agroecological Practices

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

traditional and innovative agroecological practices on their properties. Because the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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











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


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


implemented agroecological practices.



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


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

Component 1 Ecological Desirability of Practices


Multiple Regressions

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


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


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


conservation and adoption of agroecological practices. Family attributes included


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


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


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









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

practices (Ecological Desirability of Practices score and number of practices

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

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

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

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

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

Results

Comparison of communities

Descriptive data collected in the two communities reveals some similarities

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

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

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

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

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

education.

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

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

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

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

agroforestry systems and have considerably less forested and fallowed areas than

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

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

non-participants are similar.














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


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

Average Age of all family members
Head of Household Age

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

Years farming on current property

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

Hectares Natural Forest
% Natural Forest
Years since most recent deforestation


5.75 7.11
1.71 2.17
4.04 4.94
2.45 5.63


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


25.55 29.54 26.80 27.28 21.9
55.00 55.11 51.67 52.17 13.3


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

16.92 25.00 19.44 20.10 9.09


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

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


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


Hectares Annual Crops
% Annual Crops


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


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

22.05 26.68 29.31 10.68
47.13 59.83 52.60 11.15


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


26.88 30.42 29.00 19.03


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

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

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

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














Table 2-4. Continued


Hectares Pasture
% Pasture


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


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

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


Lagoa Santa
P NP


All Std.dev.


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

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











Regression Analysis of participation and family attributes on program
implementation

Fortaleza

Participation positively influenced the implementation of sustainable agricultural


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

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

cover. Stepwise multiple regression analyses indicated a variety of significant

relationships between the outcome variables and other socioeconomic factors, as

illustrated in Table 2-5.



Table 2-5. Multiple regression models for Fortaleza.

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

# Organic practices Participation 0.532 3.328 0.002 0.283

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

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

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

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


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

Lagoa Santa

Participation positively influenced the number of organic practices implemented,

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

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











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

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

# Ag. Products Participation 0.793

% Agroforestry Family Size 0.455

% Natural Forest None significant

Farm income Participation 0.480
Age of household head 0.362

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


Sig. (p) R2
0.022 0.259


t
2.505



-2.780
2.751

5.531

2.168



2.530
1.910


0.013
0.014

0.000

0.044



0.022
0.073


0.440


0.630

0.207



0.393


Use of Agricultural Practices

Multiple regression analyses examined overall implementation of agroecological


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


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


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


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


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


Fortaleza

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


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


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


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


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


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


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











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


may be considered traditional practices in Fortaleza.


100%



y 80%






o
60%




0
40%



20%




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

Non-Participants 0 Former Participants U Current Participants


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


Lagoa Santa

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


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


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


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


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


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


almost all farmers in both groups.












100%


80%


o 60%


S40%


2 20%


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


U Non Participants U Participants

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

Land Cover

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


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


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


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


forest reserve.



Non-Participants Former Participants Current Participants





36%
39% 43%




11% 17%


O Agroforestry U Annual Crops U Pasture O Capoeira U Forest


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











Participants Non Participants


8% 9%



74%
76%


I Agroforestry m Annual Crops Pasture o Capoeira m Forest


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30% in Lagoa Santa.










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

S40%
30%
20%-

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

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

Discussion

Agroecological Practices

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

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

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

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

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

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

implemented in both of these communities.

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rather than as a source of fertilizer.

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

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

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

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









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

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

depend on it as a main source of organic fertilizer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ecologically beneficial process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

as a means of clearing forest.

These data also indicate that eliminating the use of fire as a management tool may

be the most difficult of Jupara's target practices to implement.

Income

Families participating in the project tended to have higher levels of farm income

than those not participating, and in Lagoa Santa, participating families produced a greater

diversity of products for sale. While it's possible that participation in the extension

program enabled families to create more productive farms, it's also possible that those

with already productive farms, or those most dependent on farm income, were more

likely to participate in the program.

Family size, lot size, number of years farming the lot, and age of household head

were also all positively correlated with farm income in one or more communities,

according to the linear regression models. In both Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa, total

income was higher for non-participants than for participants, but farm income was higher

for participants than non-participants. Thus, participants tended to derive a higher

percentage of their total income from agriculture, especially in Lagoa Santa, where

participants earned 92.7% of their income from agriculture, while non-participants earned

only 49.2% of their income from agriculture. This may indicate that those who depend

highly on agriculture for their livelihoods have a greater incentive to invest in a program

such as Jupara, while those earning a portion of their income from an off-farm source

may be too busy to participate, or, since generally they are already earning an equal or

higher income through wage labor than they would earn farming, they may not feel that

such an investment is necessary.









Land Cover

Participating families did not conserve more forest or implement more agroforestry

systems than non-participating families. In Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa, extensive

conversion of forest to agroforestry had already occurred before the program began, and

the ten-year period of the program may not be a sufficient length of time for changes in

land cover patterns, such as the regrowth of secondary forests, to develop in response to

changes in practice initiated by the Jupara program.

Farmers in Fortaleza are meeting Jupara's goals of maintaining a minimum of 40%

of the area in agroforestry and 30% of natural forest more often than farmers in Lagoa

Santa. In Fortaleza, 20% of the community's total area is conserved as a forest reserve.

To maintain a total of 30% forested, individual farmers would have to conserve an

additional 12.5% of the individual landholding in natural forest. On average, 19% of

each individual landholding is forested, with 43% of farmers maintaining at least 12.5%

forested. The multiple regression model demonstrated that the factor most affecting

forest cover is the number of years the family has been farming the lot (p=0.009). Forest

cover decreases with time, and families with large amounts of forest cover are those who

were moved to new, forested lots when INCRA officially delineated the properties in

1997, as shown in Chapter 4. Most farmers reported settling on a completely forested lot

at some point in the past, and converting it to agriculture over a period of several years.

In Lagoa Santa, the area has been used for farming for many generations. After

several generations of dividing the land among family members, some lots are very small

and most are completely invested in intensive agriculture and agroforestry; on average,

75% of lots are in agroforestry systems. Due to this long history of agricultural use, it's

not surprising that Lagoa Santa has less forest cover remaining, on average 8% of each









lot, though many farmers have no forest at all. There is no community forest reserve in

Lagoa Santa, and only 2 farmers meet the goal of conserving 30% of the land in natural

forest. Some farmers stated that they are maintaining an area of forest regrowth as their

reserve, and on average 8.4% of lots were in forest regrowth. Farmers reported an

average of 12 years since the most recent deforestation on the site, so it is likely that most

of the deforestation in this area occurred before the Jupara program began working in the

region.

Additional analysis of a time series of satellite images is provided in Chapter 4 to

more fully understand the changes in land cover patterns before and after the Jupara

program.

Success of the Jupara Agroecology Project

Based on these results, was Jupara an effective integrated conservation and

development project? Are families meeting the project goals?

Results of this program evaluation are in agreement with several other published

ICDP evaluations (Browder 2002; Perz 2004): development goals seem to be met more

frequently than conservation ones. In both communities, participation in the Jupara

program influenced the implementation of more sustainable production practices and

enabled farmers to meet the requirements for organic certification, though the

certification itself wasn't actually maintained in all cases.

Participating farmers have higher farm incomes than non-participating farmers,

which may or may not be a result of participation in the program. The commercialization

aspect of the Jupara program hasn't been fully implemented. Currently they buy and sell

only organic cacao through the Coopasb cooperative. In communities where farmers

produce mainly cacao, an effective commercialization system is in place. For other









farmers with more diverse systems, as in Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa, commercialization

is more difficult, as it is more difficult to market smaller quantities of many things, and

for some products, little market exists for organic certified products.

Generally, these two communities are not meeting the program goals for forest

conservation. Fortaleza has a small community reserve, encompassing about 20% of the

community's total area, but less than half of the farmers there are able to maintain the

expected amount of forest on their individual properties. Lagoa Santa has no forest

reserve, and only two farmers meet the goal of 30% forest cover. Data presented here

offer no indication that farmers participating in this project conserve more forest than

non-participants.

These results are consistent with Alger and Caldas' 1998 finding that Bahian

farmers on smaller lots are less likely to conserve forests than those on larger lots.

Jupara'a goals for forest conservation are particularly challenging, then, since all farmers

interviewed had landholdings smaller than 20 hectares. In Lagoa Santa, lots are smaller

on average than in Fortaleza, and less forest remains.

However, this study did not consider the quantity of forest present at the start of the

Jupara project. Many farmers stated that their property was entirely deforested and

converted to agriculture years before they realized that deforestation was a problem, and

expressed regret at this loss. Obviously, people cannot be expected to conserve

something they don't have in the first place. In order to fully justify an integrated

conservation and development project like the Jupara project, monitoring is needed

before, during and after the project. It is difficult to evaluate project outcomes if we

don't have any baseline data on land cover or agricultural practices at the start of the









project. Analysis of satellite imagery might be one way to understand when most of the

forest loss occurred, as well as to observe trends in forest regrowth.

Finally, we have to make sure that both environmental and development goals of

ICDPs are realistic. It simply is not realistic to expect a family of 10 to survive on three

hectares of land, as was the case for one family in Lagoa Santa, and still maintain 30% of

their three hectares in a natural forest reserve. In an evaluation of a USAID funded

project in Madagascar, Peters (1998) recognizes this top-down approach to defining goals

and expectations as one of the major weaknesses of integrated conservation and

development projects. He suggests giving local people a participatory voice in defining

project objectives, as their perspective on what might be feasible and important might

differ greatly from the perspective of USAID, or in this case, WWF.

Browder (2002) makes the important point that ICDPs often lack functional

linkages between specific development activities and desired conservation outcomes.

Results of the Jupara project support this criticism. While the use of organic agricultural

practices may contribute to overall ecosystem health and develop a mindset of

environmental stewardship among participants, organic agriculture and resulting

increased incomes do not necessarily prevent deforestation.

In southern Bahia specifically, Alger (1998) points out that promoting agroforestry

by itself does not conserve biodiversity, in fact, it can result in further fragmentation of

existing forest fragments. In areas with many small farmers, the law requires only a

small forest reserve on each farm, and reserves on individual farms don't conserve much

biodiversity if farms and family reserves are disconnected from each other.

Conservation in communities of smallholders will require landscape-level participatory






45


planning to unify forest reserves and maintain connectivity between them, and this

community process will likely occur separately from the family-level process of

implementing organic agriculture.














CHAPTER 3
CONSERVATION AND AGRARIAN REFORM IN SOUTHERN BAHIA, THE CASE
OF CASCATA

Introduction

"You have probably passed by an encampment in your car or on the bus. Maybe

you have seen a march of the landless people. Certainly you have seen on television, or

in a newspaper or magazine, news of land conflicts or occupations," write Stedile and

Sergio (1993) in A lutapela terra no Brasil (The Fight for Land in Brazil), a small book

intended to explain to the wider Brazilian public the basic ideology of the MST

(Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra, The Landless Rural Workers

Movement). Groups of rural landless workers, living in makeshift plastic tents and

awaiting settlement by the Brazilian government, are indeed a common sight along the

highways in many parts of Brazil.

Brazil has the second most unequal distribution of land in the world, behind only

neighboring Paraguay (Domingos 2002). Eighty-nine percent of farms are less than 100

hectares in size and equal 20% of the total land area. One percent of farms are more than

1000 hectares in size, and equal 45% of the land area (Domingos 2002).

Conflicts over land tenure have been present throughout Brazilian history and

continue today. Historically, land reform in Brazil has occurred on lands considered

unproductive, often on forested or ecologically fragile lands, leading to further

environmental degradation and deforestation as settlers carve out an agricultural

livelihood from forested land. Te6filo and Garcia (2003) found that of the land









appropriated by INCRA between 1997 and 1999, only 21% of it was in agricultural use

before occupation, often because its soil, topography, or market access was poorly suited

for agriculture.

In recent years, an outbreak of Witches' Broom Disease has changed the dynamics

of this process in Southern Bahia. As productivity of cacao plantations decreased, large

landowners were more willing to sell their lands for redistribution through land reform.

Higher quality lands are now available for settlement, and the violence once

characteristic of land invasions is decreasing (Buschbacher in prep.).

In addition to their work in agricultural extension, Jupara has been highly involved

in the rural land reform movement in Southern Bahia, and changes in the land reform

process have led to changes in Jupara's community work. The agricultural extension

project described in Chapter 2 was originally conceived to function in traditional

agricultural communities and older, well established land reform communities in which

each family managed an individual unit of land. In recent years, the project has been

adapted to also function on resettled cacao estates, where production strategies tend to be

more collective. This chapter explains Jupara's involvement in the land reform

movement and presents the results of the agroecology extension project on a newly

settled cacao estate, Cascata.

JuparA and Land Reform

INCRA (Instituto Nacional de Colonizagdo e Reforma Agraria, or National

Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform) is the federal agency responsible for land

reform in Brazil and has an office in each Brazilian state. INCRA is responsible for the

purchase of the land from its original owner, assessing how many families should be

settled onto the property, and deciding who those families will be.









Both INCRA and the communities involved depend greatly on a handful of land

reform NGOs to facilitate the land reform process. The MST (Movement of the Landless

Workers), and the CPT (Catholic Pastoral Commission of the Land) are some well-

known examples. Many other organizations also exist and function similarly, such as

MLT (Movement for the Struggle of the Landless) and MSLT (The Land Liberation

Movement.)

In addition to providing agricultural extension services in established communities,

Jupara also provides support to a number of "encampments," or communities in the

process of acquiring land on which to settle. In southern Bahia there are many of these

encampments, basically communities living in black plastic tents along the highways,

indicating their intention to settle on the adjacent land. These people are unemployed

plantation workers, sons and daughters of farmers whose landholding is too small to

support them, or even city dwellers looking for a better life. The political process

involved in the formation of a new land reform community is complicated and often takes

years.

Most encampments receive assistance from a land reform NGO in applying to

INCRA for settlement. According to Cullen et al. (2005), only 5% of land reform

projects in Brazil were initiated by INCRA. The other 95% were initiated by land reform

NGOs, who organized a group of settlers and petitioned INCRA's cooperation.

Settlement is a community process. When land is settled, INCRA grants an

Emissdo de Posse, or right of land use, to the community association rather than to

individuals. Generally a community will work with only one land reform NGO, and

these NGOs tend to differ in their philosophies in how a community should be managed.









These communities will often live for a number of years in an encampment until they are

granted a piece of land, so community organization is very important, both before and

after settlement. The land reform NGOs assist with this organizational process and with

the development of community leaders.

The Jupara extensionists have an extensive and complex history of work with land

reform over the past 10 years. When they began working with encampments in the mid

1980s, the process usually involved the violent occupation of a piece of land, usually

forested land or land of poor soil quality, that was considered "socially unproductive" by

Brazilian law and thus eligible for reappropriation, whether the landowner wanted to give

up this land or not. Some of these lands were known as "latifundos," a term which refers

to very large rural landholdings, parts of which are often left fallow or forested. Any land

which was not currently dedicated to the active production of agricultural goods, or did

not generate employment for local workers, was considered eligible for land reform.

According to a 1993 MST report, 180 million hectares were classified as "latifundos" in

Brazil. Redistribution of these lands is the focus of the agrarian reform movement

(Stedile & Sergio 1993).

In 1989, Witches Broom Disease broke out in the cacao plantations of Bahia, and

led many plantation owners to stop investing in the labor and fertilizer inputs necessary

for cacao production. Lack of care, fertilization, and pruning allowed the disease to

spread even more rapidly through the plantations, further reducing their productivity.

This change facilitated the land reform movement in southern Bahia. Unemployment of

former plantation workers resulted in an increase in the number of workers and families

becoming involved in the land reform movements of the time, the MST and others,









including Jupard (Trevizan 1998). With little prospect of future earnings in cacao,

owners of the once-lucrative cacao plantations were willing to sell their land to the

Brazilian government for redistribution among landless settlers, with much less violent

conflict than in previous years (Buschbacher in prep.). For this reason, the Jupard

extensionists sometimes referred to Witches' Broom Disease as "a santa vassoura da

bruxa," or Saint Witches' Broom. Management of the disease is labor intensive and can

be carried out more effectively by smallholders than by large plantation owners. Most of

the recent land reform settlements are on former cacao plantations. Families receive a

small area of established cacao, which they clean and prune, replant cacao where

necessary, and eventually bring back into production.

Land reform in Bahia continues to evolve and many families continue to await

resettlement, while living under black plastic and depending on food aid from the

government, churches, and NGOs. While this process is happening throughout Brazil,

according to MST's website (www.mst.org.br) (MST 2006), in 2003 Bahia had more

encampments than any other state, with 20,000 MST-sponsored individuals awaiting

resettlement.

Cascata, a Land Reform Settlement

Most recently, Jupard's work has focused on newer land reform settlements,

usually on former cacao plantations. In addition, Jupard has worked with encampments,

or groups of people awaiting settlement through the land reform process. Extension

services are provided before the community is settled on the landholding, and landholders

have had Jupard support for the entire period of land ownership. Often potential

landowners are from urban areas or are former plantation workers, and have little

experience in agriculture and the decisions involved in land management. Extension









programs in encampments focus on community organization, environmental education,

and sustainable agriculture and land management, so that when future landowners

actually receive their own plot, they are prepared to make environmentally and

economically sound decisions. Typically, communities which have recently passed

through the encampment process are more unified than older communities, and usually

all families participate in the Jupara project. Often residents live in the workers' houses

left behind by the plantation owners, so all community members live in a central

residential area, with agricultural areas located outside of the residential area.

Cascata is one cacao plantation community that began collaborating with Jupara

while still an encampment. Many differences in the production strategies, biophysical

characteristics, age of the community, and level of participation in extension activities in

Cascata make it difficult to compare directly with older communities like Fortaleza and

Lagoa Santa. A small number of interviews were also conducted in Cascata, in order to

understand how the project may work differently in different community types, and in

order to compare Jupara's past projects with their current and future directions.

Site Description

Cascata is located in the municipality of Ubaitaba, Bahia. Cascata was an

abandoned cacao plantation that was sold for land reform. Forty families were settled

there in 1998. The land titles were granted not to individuals but to the community

association, although each family was assigned an area of 4-5 hectares of the plantation

to maintain and harvest. In addition, about 180 hectares of Atlantic Forest were

designated as a community forest reserve.

Cascata farmers produce cacao almost exclusively. Most of the land was planted in

cacao already, and little open area was available for planting manioc and other food









crops. Each family harvests cacao from its individual area. Cacao seeds must be

fermented and dried before sale, and this process is done collectively in a communal area,

using infrastructure left behind by the plantation owner. The entire community

landholding is organic certified and the cacao is marketed through the Jupara cooperative.

In order to receive the higher organic price, the cacao must also be top quality, which

depends on correct fermentation and drying, so the community decided to designate a few

community members to complete this process in hopes of a more uniform and higher

quality product.

In comparison to Fortaleza, Lagoa Santa, and other local smallholder communities,

the standard of living in Cascata is quite high. Unlike in the older communities studied,

very few Cascata residents work outside of the community. A few have off-farm income

from retirement pensions. The community is located along a major highway, allowing

for easy access to public transportation, local markets, secondary education and health

services. Because Cascata was established on a former plantation, much of the

infrastructure was already in place, including a dozen workers houses where families are

now living, a large building for meetings and events, a church and school, production

areas for processing cacao, and a large cacao dryer. Additional houses were constructed

to accommodate additional families. Families enjoy well-constructed brick homes,

electricity, running water, modern sanitary facilities, and even a public telephone. All of

the residences are located in the central community area and the cacao plantation areas

surround this central area. In Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa, every family lives on its own

piece of land, and residents are fairly isolated from their neighbors. Cascata's centralized

model greatly facilitates community organization and cooperation.









Methods

Twelve households were randomly selected for household interviews, as described

in Chapter 2. Data was collected on participation in the Jupara program, use of target

agroecological practices, land use patterns, and other socioeconomic conditions that

might affect a family's ability to meet project goals.

As in Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa, a participation score was calculated for each

family and data were entered into linear regression models.

Descriptive statistics were compiled for each of the three communities including a

number of factors, including family characteristics and land use patterns. A MANOVA

analysis was used to assess differences across communities. Tamhane T2 Post-Hoc Test

was used to test the statistical difference between each pair of communities. MANOVA

was selected for its ability to compare multiple dependant variables in three or more

categories while taking into account possible correlations between the dependant

variables.

Results

Participation

Although Cascata entered the project later, participation in Cascata was comparable

to participation in the other two communities (Figure 3-1).

In Cascata, all families participated in the Jupara project (Figure 3-1) and all

maintain organic certification, and are utilizing, at minimum, the organic practices

required for certification. Cacao agroforestry was already established when residents

received their plots, and a community forest reserve sets aside 40% of the community's

total area in natural forest. Because little variation in participation, practices, or land







54


cover existed among families interviewed, linear regression models showed no

significant effect of participation on agricultural practices, farm income, or land cover.


60


50


40 A
A A A
A




) oMembership
0 A
1. o a Coopasb Member
c 100 0
Past Member
-U
0 0 Non-Member
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Community: 1=Fortaleza, 2=Lagoa Santa, 3=Cascata

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

Therefore, only descriptive statistics are presented here. Table 3-1 presents

household data collected in Fortaleza, Lagoa Santa, and Cascata and allows for

comparison between Cascata and older communities. On average, Cascata residents have

more years of education, fewer off-farm workers, and a larger percentage of income

coming from agriculture than Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa residents. Cascata has a smaller

family landholding size than Fortaleza and a similar size to Lagoa Santa. Including the

community forest reserves, Cascata has more forest and less area in annual crops than the

other two communities.














Table 3-1. Descriptive statistics by groups for three communities. indicates statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between
communities as measured by MANOVA analysis. Statistical relationships are shown between each community, Fortaleza
(F), Lagoa Santa (L) and Cascata (C) as measured by Tamhane T2 Post-Hoc Test.
Fortaleza Lagoa Santa Cascata Statistical Relationship
Mean Std.dev Mean Std.dev. Mean Std.dev. Between Communities


Family size
Total family members living in community
On-farm workers
Off-farm workers*
Children living outside community


6.07
1.85
1.23
3.65


4.19
1.30
1.00
3.19


7.35
2.65
0.86
3.00


5.33
2.06
0.54
2.56


1.87
1.00
0.69
3.60


F=L=C

Average age of all family members
Head of household age


31.76 12.8
54.03 13.3


29.31 10.68
55.60 11.15


32.40 13.32
52.92 15.48


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


4.67
10.60
11.45
3.43


Years farming on current property*


20.10 9.09


Family Landholding
Total area* 15.96 1.30


% Agroforestry*
Age of Oldest Agroforestry System
Age of Newest Agroforestry System


39.1%
17.68
6.45


% Natural Forest (includes community reserve)*
Years since most recent deforestation


% Fallow/Forest Regrowth


% Annual Crops*


15.6%
8.80
5.07


29.00 19.03


9.43 7.40


74.6%
21.22
5.91


36.0% 17.9%
20.10 9.09

12.3% 11.5

7.3% 6.5%


20.3%
10.26
4.14


8.0% 15.2%
18.91 16.09

8.4% 10.4%

11.1% 14.4%


5.4% 5.8% 3.0% 3.8%


2.90
5.35
14.20
3.39


5.72 2.90


10.13 4.49

46.1% 12.6%
Unknown
Unknown

40% 0%
Unknown

6.2% 6.8%

1.9% 2.5%

2% 0%


F=LF
F>LF
F>LF
F>LF

F=L>C

F>L=C
FC= F


F>L

F=L>C

% Pasture














Table 3-1. Continued


Total Income in Brazilian Reais
Farm Income
Other Income
% income from farming*


Fortaleza
Mean Std.dev
8700 4617
3775 2290
4925 3689
45.2% 26.3%


Lagoa Santa
Mean Std.dev.
8581 4341
5375 3716
3206 3717
66.6% 30.8%


Cascata
Mean
7330
4919
2413
74.5%


Std.dev.
4021
3545
3535
31.3%


Statistical Relationship
Between Communities



F=L=C>F











Adoption of Agroecological Practices

As in the other two communities, farmers implemented some practices more often


than others. In Cascata, the preferred practices differ slightly (Figure 3-2). Green


manures, homemade liquid organic fertilizer, composting, and contour erosion barriers


were implemented least often, and crop rotation was also implemented less often than in


the other two communities. As in Fortaleza and Cascata, mulching and multicropping are


used by most farmers. All properties in Cascata obtained organic certification as a group,


so 100% of farmers have replaced chemical fertilizers with the commercial organic


fertilizer that Jupara sells, as chemical fertilizers are strictly prohibited. Only one farmer


reports burning his field, and others stated that burning is also prohibited.


80%


60%


40%


20%


0%
Green Manures Homemade Composting Contour Erosion Commerci2
Organic Barriers Organic
Fertilizer Fertilizer

InPE


No Burning


No
Agrochemicals


Crop Rotation


Mulching Multi-cropping


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

Land Use

The entire Cascata settlement meets Jupara's land cover goals of 30% natural forest


cover and 40% agroforestry. Two large community forest reserves encompass 40% of


Mulching Multi-cropping


No
Agrochemicals


No Burning









the community's total area. Most of the other 60% of the settlement was already planted

in cacao agroforestry, although in poor condition. Each family received a parcel already

planted in cacao, and some farmers also have a small area for annual crops, usually where

cacao trees have died of Witches Broom Disease. There is also a small community

pasture area for work animals and some communally owned cattle. Figure 3-3 shows the

distribution of land use in Cascata, including the community managed forest reserve.









6 48%







2%
O Agroforestry U Annual Crops U Pasture D Capoeira U Forest


Figure 3-3. Land Use Distribution in Cascata.

Discussion

Agroforestry and Conservation in Cascata

Jupara considers Cascata to be one of their greatest success stories. This

community is very different from Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa and may not be directly

comparable. In Cascata, all families participate in the Jupara program and sell products

through the Jupara cooperative. One hundred percent of families are organic certified

and as such are required to use only organic fertilizers. All interviewees reported

eliminating chemical fertilizer and using a commercial organic fertilizer, and only one









farmer reported using fire. For this reason, there may not be enough variation in levels of

participation or agricultural practices to show significant results here.

Preferred agricultural practices are slightly different in Cascata than in the other

communities. Fewer farmers reported using crop rotation, probably because this is

usually done at the beginning stages of establishing an agroforestry system, and most

Cascata farmers received already established plots. This can be a challenge in

communities on established estates, as there is little open area in which to plant annual

crops for household consumption. Homemade liquid organic fertilizer was more popular

here than in the other communities, possibly because the community association owns

several cows, so manure is readily available to use in preparing the homemade fertilizer.

A biogas project is underway to compost manure and produce methane gas to power a

cacao dryer, but as of the time of these interviews, farmers were not yet using the

compost produced by that project. Knowing that different types of communities prefer

different agroecological practices, Jupara extensionists can adapt future extension

programs to promote the practices most fitting to each type of community.

In Cascata, two large forest reserves conserve 40% of the settlement's total area in

primary Atlantic Forest. Farmers have access to only as much land as they can use for

agriculture; the forested land is strictly off-limits to agricultural activity. This is perhaps

the best scenario to ensure long-term forest conservation. Forested areas are large and

contiguous, rather than fragmented into smaller family-owned forest reserves as in

Fortaleza. Because the farming system in Cascata is intensive and permanent, and was

already established when farmers took possession of the land, Cascata farmers may feel

less need to clear forests than farmers in other communities. Soil quality is also better in









Cascata than in the other two communities, which allows for more intensive cacao

production on relatively small parcels.

Community members in Cascata have hopes of one day benefiting from their forest

reserve as an ecotourism destination. In addition to the forest reserve, Cascata has

several other unusual resources that might make it a suitable ecotourism site in the future,

including a beautiful waterfall with a large pool suitable for swimming, and a large

community house, originally the plantation owner's home, that might provide suitable

guest rooms, as well as optimal location along a major road with frequent bus service.

Although ecotourism is only an idea now, the presence of these resources may provide an

additional incentive to conserve forests and other natural resources.

Future Directions for Jupara

Jupara's current work focuses mainly on communities like Cascata: new land

reform settlements on former cacao estates. While it is important to recognize the need

for extension services to improve both livelihoods and conservation practices in all rural

communities, regardless of age, location, or production strategy, communities like

Cascata are in many ways the ideal places for Jupara's work, especially from a

conservation perspective. There are several reasons for this.

First, Cascata and communities like it tend to be highly organized. Community

members live close together in a small residential area, rather than in isolated homes on

individual landholdings. This facilitates the participation of most, if not all, community

members, and makes it easy to organize meetings and activities. Some important

management decisions, such as the designation of community reserves and organic

certification of the entire estate, are made collectively rather than individually.









Secondly, the biophysical conditions on abandoned cacao estates tend to be much

more suited for agriculture than those of older land reform settlements. Historically, the

best lands were occupied by wealthy estate owners, and settlers invaded poorer lands.

Many settlements still exist on these lands, and in several cases, agriculture has proven

inviable given the poor soil quality. In Cascata, landowners can produce cacao, a crop

that is demanding in soil nutrients but produces a lucrative product, with a minimum of

fertilizer inputs. Cacao is also advantageous because there is a market for organic cacao.

Finally, by actively participating in the land reform process, Jupara is able to gain

access to these communities before they are settled on the land and begin educating

future farmers before destructive practices are in place. In many cases, new settlers have

little farming experience, and it may be easier to teach agroecological practices to a new

farmer than to change the well-established practices of a veteran.

Also, as facilitators of the land reform process, Jupara extensionists are able to

choose landholdings to target for land reform, and are currently working to choose areas

that have conservation value. In this way, larger remaining patches of Atlantic Forest can

be preserved as community reserves within new settlements.














CHAPTER 4
EFFECTS OF AN NGO EXTENSION PROGRAM ON LAND USE CHANGE ON
SMALL FARM PROPERTIES IN THE ATLANTIC FOREST OF SOUTHERN BAHIA

Introduction

The use of remote sensing technology has become a common method for assessing

land use and land cover change (LULCC) in many areas of the world. Researchers have

used satellite imagery to observe vegetation patterns at a landscape-wide scale, and also

to observe changes over time through analysis of a time series of images. Remote

sensing plays an important role in monitoring tropical deforestation in regions such as the

Brazilian Amazon (McCracken et al. 2002), Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula (Vance &

Geoghegan 2002), and Southeast Asia (Rindfuss et al. 2002).

While remote sensing is a powerful tool, it allows us to examine only the physical,

spatial, and temporal aspects of land cover change. Many researchers have paired remote

sensing studies with on-the-ground data collection, including interviews of local

landowners, in order to better understand the social, economic, and political drivers of

deforestation and other land cover changes. Although interviews may take place at the

level of households or individual landholdings, remote sensing analyses are commonly

broader in scale, encompassing entire regions, watersheds, protected areas and their

buffer zones, or villages. In one example, Sunderlin et al. (2000) used satellite imagery

to observe a nationwide trend in deforestation following an economic crisis, and a survey

of 5000 households in Cameroon to help explain this change, but households were not

linked to a specific location on the landscape.









Although landscape-wide studies are useful for determining broad-scale trends in

land cover change, understanding region-wide habitat availability for a particular species,

assessing the connectivity of landscape elements, or planning future protected areas,

many land use decisions are made at a much finer scale. Especially in developing

countries where small-scale agriculture is common, individual landowners make

decisions about which crops to plant and where, whether or not to convert forest to

agriculture, which trees to cut, how much fertilizer and pesticide to use, and how to

manage water resources. A comprehensive understanding of the forces driving land use

and land cover change requires an understanding of the household-level decision making

process (Rindfuss et al. 2002).

Very few LULCC studies have focused specifically on change at the household

plot level, due in part to methodological difficulties inherent in identifying the precise

location of a small farm plot on a satellite image. Several studies in the Brazilian

Amazon have linked households with specific plots of land (McCracken et al. 2002;

Walsh et al. 2002). These studies have been facilitated by the fact that plots in most

newer Amazonian settlements are of a uniform size and shape, and characterized by a

"fishbone" pattern of deforestation, allowing for easy identification of each landholding

on the satellite image. McCracken et al. (2002) initially used digital property maps

obtained from INCRA, the government agency responsible for delineating new

settlements. They found that these maps were often inaccurate or incomplete, since their

purpose was simply to identify which plots belonged to whom, not to conduct detailed

GIS analyses. They were able to develop a suitable farm property grid for 402









households using a combination of the INCRA maps, GPS points collected in the field,

and mathematical interpolation of GIS layers.

In some study regions, no property maps are available, and properties may be

irregularly shaped or not legally owned by the user. In these cases, researchers have had

to create property maps using GPS points collected in the field, combined with sketch

maps of the property and identification of key landscape features visible on the image.

This method is time and labor intensive. Walsh et al. (2002) employed this method,

along with a base maps of roads, to identify 418 landholdings in the Ecuadorean Amazon.

Vance and Geoghegan (2002) used GPS points and participatory mapping to

outline 188 properties within the ejido systems in Quintana Roo and Campeche, Mexico.

In other regions, landowners reside in one place, while agricultural activities occur

somewhere else. This was the case in northeastern Thailand, where Rindfuss et al.

(2002) selected 310 villages and experimented with various methodologies to link

households to their field plots. This process is even more difficult and labor intensive

when agricultural plots do not contain the dwelling unit.

In each of these studies, researchers interviewed parcel owners and compiled data

on socioeconomic conditions and land use decisions of each family. These data were

then related to land cover data in order to better understand why different families might

make different land use decisions.

This study will employ a combination of these methods to carry out a property-

level study of land use change in Fortaleza, a rural settlement near Una, Brazil, and to

further develop the methodology for such research. As noted by previous researchers,

difficulties in accurately identifying individual properties limit the accuracy of results.









Thirty household interviews were conducted in June and July of 2005, as part of an

evaluation of the Jupara Agroecology Extension Program. Through a partnership with

WWF, Jupara has been working in the area since 1995 to promote organic agroforestry

and forest conservation. Specific program goals included the implementation of

agroecological practices and maintenance of 40% of each landholding in agroforestry and

30% in natural forest cover. Taking into account a large community forest reserve,

individual landholders were expected to maintain 12.5% of their own landholding in a

forest reserve, to maintain 30% of the overall community landscape in forest cover.

Results of the program evaluation interviews indicated that while many participants

have implemented organic agricultural practices, only 42% of participants, and 43% of all

farmers interviewed, have maintained a forest reserve equal to at least 12.5% of their

property.

Interview data offer only a snapshot of one point in time. Many landowners report

that although the area was almost completely forested when the first settlers arrived in the

1970s, extensive deforestation had occurred before the Jupara program began in 1995.

More recent settlers reported significantly more remaining forest cover than those who

had been living in Fortaleza for longer periods of time. Knowing the distribution of land

cover types that landowners report at present, this remote sensing analysis was designed

to assess the extent of forest cover in the community before and after the Jupara project.

Images from 1986, well before the project began, and 2001, the most recent image

available, were analyzed to address the following research questions:

* How has forest cover changed in Fortaleza between 1986 and the present?
* How much forest cover was present before the Jupara program began?
* Is the program asking landowners to conserve something that wasn't present to
begin with?









* Are program participants more likely to allow forest regrowth than non-
participants?
* Is land cover data reported in interviews consistent with land cover data observed
on satellite images?

Study Region

Fortaleza

Fortaleza is a land reform settlement near Una, BA. Fifty families are settled on

1102 hectares, with an average lot size of 16 hectares (INCRA 2006). Approximately

250 hectares are in community areas including a forest reserve and a small community

cacao plantation. Families began settling the area in the mid 1970s. At that time, the

area was completely forested. Most of the settlers in Fortaleza grew up on their parents'

farms or worked on nearby rubber plantations before settling there.

INCRA (Instituto Nacional de Colonizagdo e Reforma Agraria, the government

agency responsible for land reform) officially divided the land and gave titles to these

landholders in 1997. At this time, eight new lots were created along the westernmost

perimeter of the community, in an area that had been a part of the community forest

reserve. By locating families along the perimeter of the reserve, INCRA hoped to avoid

invasion of this land by outsiders. Eight families were moved from their original plot of

land to one of these new, completely forested plots, and other families had a portion of

their original land officially titled to a neighbor.

In most cases, the male head of household received a title to his individual parcel

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

some manioc, corn, fruit and vegetable crops for consumption.

Of the 50 families settled in Fortaleza, nine are currently members of Jupara and

COOPASB, Jupara's agricultural cooperative. Nine families were formerly members and









dropped out, and the remainder of residents may have participated in some Jupara

training events but never formally joined the cooperative. For the purposes of this

analysis, we compare members, former members, non-members, and families on new

lots. The families on new lots are also non-members but are analyzed separately due to

the more recent process of land cover change on these lots.

The Atlantic Forest of Southern Bahia

Fortaleza is located in the Atlantic Forest Region of Southern Bahia, Brazil, and

has been targeted for conservation efforts due to it's proximity to the Una Biological

Reserve. Figure 4-1 shows the location of the study site and the reserve. The Una

Reserve encompasses about 11,000 hectares of what remains of the Atlantic Forest

ecosystem (Buschbacher in prep.). The Atlantic Forest, which once covered much of the

eastern coast of Brazil as well as parts of Argentina and Paraguay, is one of the world's

most diverse ecosystems, and also one of the most endangered. The first mapping of the

Brazilian Atlantic Forest was undertaken in 1990 with the participation of IBAMA

(Instituto Brasiliero do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renovaveis, or the

Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) and the

Fundacgo SOS Mata Atlantica (SOS Atlantic Forest Foundation), a prominent Brazilian

NGO. According to this project, the Atlantic Forest originally covered 15% of the

Brazilian national territory, and has been reduced to a mere 7% of its original area, or

about 1% of the Brazilian National Territory. The Atlantic Forest is home to 108 million

people, or about 60% of the population of Brazil (Hirota 2003).













Bahia


S ORIGINAL
REMANESCENTE

SIESB 2004 Image, 5121101' -
rea around ~J Reserve-w =

Figure 4-1. Location of study site. The blue box indicates the Southern Bahia region with
the original extent of the Atlantic Forest shown in yellow and remaining forest
in green. The smaller black box indicates the area around Fortaleza and the
Una Reserve. May 2001 Landsat image of the reserve and Foratleza is shown
on the right.

The Atlantic Forest Biome is on the Global 200 list of globally outstanding

ecoregions, and is considered a Biodiversity Hot Spot (Mittermeier et al. 1999). The

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

plants, including more than 6000 endemic plant species and more than 500 endemic

animal species (Mittermeier et al. 1999).

In order to set priorities for conserving what remains of the fragmented Atlantic

Forest, two biodiversity corridors have been designated; the Serra do Mar Corridor,

which extends southwest of Rio de Janeiro through Minas Gerais, Sao Paulo, and Parana

states, and the Corridor Central, in Southern Bahia and Espiritu Santo (Figure 4-2)

(Aguiar et al. 2003). The Una Reserve and Fortaleza fall within the Central Corridor.


!









Within the Central Corridor, researchers have documented extremely high tree diversity

(Thomas et al. 1998), twelve endemic primate species (Pinto 1994) and 50% of the

known endemic bird species of the Atlantic Forest (Aguiar et al. 2003). The Central

Corridor encompasses almost 12 million hectares, and about 12% of its total area is

covered in native forest (Conservation International 2006). The corridor contains at least

40 protected areas, 70% of which are state-owned. The average protected area size in the

region is 93.13 km2 (Aguiar et al. 2003). Financial resources needed to enforce protected

areas and establish new ones are limited, so an emphasis on privately owned protected

areas and community managed ones, like the community reserve in Fortaleza, is essential

for the long-term conservation of the Atlantic Forest.



















http://www.corredores.org.br/?area=c

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

The Central Corridor includes the cacao growing region of Southern Bahia.

Currently about 600,000 hectares of Theobroma cacao, a medium-sized understory tree,

are planted in this region (Buschbacher in prep.), many maintain some of the original









forest canopy or are interspersed with patches of natural forest (Alger 1998; Alves 1990;

Buschbacher in prep.). This region's cacao agroforests have generated considerable

interest within the conservation community for their potential to maintain forest-like

landscapes and serve as biological corridors between blocks of fragmented forest (Alves

1990). Researchers in many countries have demonstrated that while agroforestry systems

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

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

diverse systems providing more suitable habitat than less diverse systems (Alves 1990;

Greenberg 1998; Greenberg et al. 2000; Laurance 2004; Reitsma et al. 2001). Pardini

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

Biological Reserve. For this reason, conservation programs like the one implemented by

Jupara, targeting cacao producers and producers of other agroforestry crop such as

rubber, cloves, palms, and fruit, are important to maintain connectivity of the region's

remaining forest fragments.

Remote sensing studies in the Atlantic Forest

The presence of extensive agroforestry further complicates remote sensing studies

in this region. In regions such as the Amazon and Mexico's dry tropical forests, land

cover can usually be divided into forested and non-forested, as annual crops or pastures

for livestock are common land uses. Agroforests, on the other hand, can be extremely

difficult to separate from natural forests and forest regrowth, especially in the case of

cabruca systems, in which cacao is planted in the shade of natural forest overstory trees

(Lemos Costa 2000; Saatchi et al. 2001), or very old agroforestry systems. Fortaleza

residents harvest rubber and cacao from agroforestry systems that may be more than









thirty years old, although these are usually not cabruca systems but mixed plantations of

rubber, cacao, and other fruit species.

Only a few remote sensing studies have been carried out in the Atlantic Forest

region. Lemos Costa (2000); Saatchi et al. (2001), and Araujo (1997) all carried out

broad scale classifications of the Southern Bahia region using Landsat Imagery and

NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index). NDVI is a vegetation index

commonly used as a measure of plant biomass. Lemos and Araujo both defined forested

areas, agroforests and open areas by assigning a characteristic range of NDVI values to

each. Use of NDVI alone, however, may be unreliable, because NDVI has been shown

to be ineffective in classifying uneven aged, humid tropical forests where the biomass can

be very high (Sader et al. 1989).

Several other studies have relied on more expensive, higher resolution imagery to

distinguish between similar land cover classes like forests and agroforestry, such as

IKONOS imagery (Guanes Rego & Koch 2003), SIR-C Radar imagery (Saatchi et al.

2001), and CASI imagery, which is similar to an aerial photograph (Olson 1998). Due to

the financial constraints of this study, this approach was not considered.

Methods

Interviews

A total of 30 household interviews were conducted in Fortaleza in June and July of

2005. The fifty existing households were classified as participants, former participants,

or non-participants in the Jupara project. Current members of the Jupara's agricultural

cooperative, Coopasb, were considered participants, past members were former

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

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









random sample of 10 was selected, for a total of 30 interviews. Interview content

included questions concerning family demographics, agricultural practices, and land

cover distribution, and participation in Jupara training activities.

Participatory Mapping and Training Points

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

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

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

use in image classification. Farmers reported five land cover types: Forests,

Agroforestry, "Capoeira," which includes forest regrowth and fallowed areas, Annual

Crops, and Pasture. To assist participants in describing their property's land cover

distribution, a participatory mapping activity was carried out in which participants were

asked to draw a simple sketch map of their landholding, including agroforestry systems

and forested areas, areas of annual crops and pastures, roads, waterways, and houses. A

representative sketch is shown in Figure 4-3. GPS points were collected along the

perimeter and covers of these sketches, and at other important landscape features, to

assist in placing the property boundary on the image.

Image Processing

Landsat images from September 11, 1986 and May 23, 2001 were acquired from

the University of Maryland's Global Land Cover Facility (University of Maryland 2006).

Image dates were chosen based on availability of cloud-free imagery, and seasonal

differences in vegetation may influence results somewhat. The most recent Landsat

images (2003-present) are affected by an equipment malfunction and were not used for

this study.






73





;4-1

























Figure 4-3. Property sketch created by a community member.
a I













Bahia). Fortaleza is located in a very rural area, roads are not paved and are not visible'
I / /




", T/ / |






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

Images were subset to a manageable size. The 2001 image was georectified to a

map ofwaterways provided by IESB (Instituto de Estudos Socioambientais do Sul da

Bahia). Fortaleza is located in a very rural area, roads are not paved and are not visible

on the image. The 1986 image was then georectified to the 2001 image. Images were

calibrated to remove differences in haze and light angle between the two image dates. An

NDVI layer and a texture layer were added to the original image, to provide additional

information for image classification.

The most difficult part of a property-level remote sensing study is locating the

properties on the image. INCRA in Salvador provided a digital map of Fortaleza. The









map included only the community outline, roads, and streams; individual property

outlines were not included, and UTM coordinates appeared to be off by a factor of 1000.

Jupara provided a photocopy of another map, also produced by INCRA, which did

include property boundaries. This photocopied map was scanned and georectified in

Erdas Imagine, using points extracted by hand and multiplied by 1000 from the digital

map. The scanned, georectified map was then traced with a mouse to create an

independent vector layer that could be projected on top of the image. This multistep

process created some error in the location of property boundaries, and some GPS points

collected in the field did not fall into the correct property polygons. INCRA maps are not

particularly accurate to begin with, as noted by other researchers (McCracken et al.

2002), since their main purpose is simply to keep records of who owns which lot, not to

conduct scientific research. Accuracy of this analysis also depends on the accuracy of the

IESB map used for image georectification. Additional GPS data from the field could

improve the accuracy of this map. However, the location of several large landscape

features, such as the community forest reserve and a large cleared ranch just to the south

of the community boundary, confirm that the vector layer is in approximately the correct

location.

The vector layer was projected onto the images and images were subset again to

include only Fortaleza. Images were classified using methods of unsupervised

classification (Jensen 2005). Computer-generated classes were identified as Forest,

Agroforestry and Forest Regrowth, Cleared Areas, and Clouds and Shadows, based on

training points collected in the field and general knowledge of the landscape. Farmers

reported five land cover categories, but since some of these are difficult to separate on the









image, images were classified into only three classes, plus clouds and shadows. "Forest"

on the image could include forest and some mature forest regrowth or very old

agroforestry systems. "Agroforestry and Forest Regrowth" were one category for the

purposes of image classification, and include agroforestry and regrowth that farmers

reported as "capoeira." "Cleared Areas" include annual crops, pastures, and some

recently fallowed capoeiras.

Classifications were imported into ArcGIS and separate layers were created for

each land use class for each image date. Clouds and shadows were eliminated from the

analysis. The vector layer was modified so that each landholding was a separate polygon

with its own identification number. Using the zonal statistics tool, the area of Forest,

Agroforestry/Regrowth, and Cleared Areas within each polygon was calculated for the

1986 and 2001 classifications. Percent change in each land cover type between 1986 and

2001 was calculated for each polygon.

Results

Land Use Classifications

Classifications of 1986 and 2001 images show areas of forest, agroforestry or

regrowth, and open areas within property polygons and communal areas (Figures 4-4 and

4-5). Areas in which the land use changed from the 1986 image to the 2001 image are

highlighted in Figure 4-6. Properties were divided into several categories for the

purposes of this analysis. Table 4-1 shows distribution of Forest, Agroforestry (AF), and

Cleared Areas for property owners who participated in the Jupara program, former Jupara

participants, and non-participants. Lots which were not yet in use in 1986 were analyzed

separately and are labeled New Lots. (All of the families on new lots were also non-









participants, but results for non-participants on new lots are not included in results for

non-participants on older lots.) The community reserve was also analyzed separately.


Land Use in Fortaleza, 1986


Legend
0
- Former Participants
Participants
- Non-Participants
- New Lots (Non-Participants)
- Community Areas
Forest
SAgroforestry/Forest Regrowth
Cleared Areas/Annual Crops/Pasture
= | Clouds and Shadows


460 920 1,840 2,760 3,680
m I Mete


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


^.














Land Use in Fortaleza, 2001


0 480 920


Legend


1,840 2,760 3,680


- Former Participants
- Participants
- Non-Participants
- New Lots (Non-Participants)
- Community Areas
Forest
Agrforestry/Forest Regrowth
Cleared Areas/Annual Crops/Pasture


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


Metels














Land Use Change in Fortaleza, 1986 2001


Legend
- Former Participants
- Participants
- Non-Participants
- New Lots (Non-Participants)
- Community Areas
M Cleared-> Forest
AF/Reg. -> Forest
I I Cleared -> AF/Reg
SForest -> AF/Reg.
SAF/Reg. -> Cleared
M Forest -> Cleared
= | No Change


N



0 460 920


1,840 2,760 3,680


m Metels


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










Table 4-1. Land use change in Fortaleza, 1986-2001.
Forest Forest % Change AF/R AF/R % Change Cleared Cleared % Change
1986 2001 in Forest 1986 2001 in AF/R 1986 2001 in Cleared
Non-Participants 16% 24% 8% 40% 46% 6% 38% 34% -4%
Former Participants 25% 27% 2% 50% 48% -2% 21% 25% 5%
Participants 14% 34% 20% 44% 35% -8% 41% 35% -5%
New Lots 84% 16% -68% 5% 16% 11% 7% 28% 22%
Community Reserve 81% 78% -3% 14% 16% 2% 5% 6% 1%
Total 32% 31% -2% 35% 39% 3% 28% 31% 2%

Figure 4-7 shows the percent change in each cover class for lots owned by

participants, former participants, and non-participants, as well as on new lots and within

the community forest reserve, and for the entire community area. The overall quantity of

these three land use classes remained essentially the same in Fortaleza between 1986 and

2001, but the spatial distribution of forest patches, agroforestry, and cleared areas have

changed. Several new lots have been settled in what was once a forested area, forest

cover has decreased in these areas as well as in the community forest reserve.

Meanwhile, forest cover has increased on older agricultural lots. Forest cover increased

by 20% on lots owned by Jupari participants, compared with a 9% increase on non-

participants' lots, and 2% increase on former participants' lots. In addition, the land

cover maps show that much of the increase in forest cover occurs along two riparian

areas.










Land Use Change in Fortaleza, 1986-2001

30%


10% -

0 N FP P EW RESERVE TOTAL
a -10%
S-10% Forest
El AF/Regrowth

S-30% Open
30%


-50%


-70%

Figure 4-7. Land use change in Fortaleza on properties owned by non-participants (NP),
former participants (FP), and current participants (P) in the Jupara project, as
well as on newer lots and within the community forest reserve.

Comparison with Interview Data

The participants in this study reported a land use distribution similar to the one

observed on the Landsat image. Figure 4-8 shows the average land use distribution

reported by interviewees, and Figure 4-9 shows the community-wide distribution

observed on the 2001 classification. The interview data included additional classes

which are difficult to discern on satellite imagery; forest regrowth and fallows are a

separate category, and open areas are divided into annual crops and pastures.










Land Use in Fortaleza as observed on 2001 Landsat Image


E Agforestry/Regrowth 0 Cleared Areas 0 Forest

Figure 4-8. Distribution of land uses in Fortaleza as measured by classification of 2001
Landsat data.


Land use in Fortaleza as reported by farmers


[ Agroforestry m Annual Crops Pasture m Capoeira Forest

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









Discussion

Remote Sensing Analysis

This analysis shows that the overall proportions of forest, agroforestry or forest

regrowth, and open areas in Fortaleza were nearly the same in 2001 as in 1986, with

slight increases in agroforestry (3%) and open spaces (2%), and a slight decrease in forest

(-2%). However, analysis of the satellite imagery reveals that the spatial distribution of

forest patches has changed considerably since 1986. In the eastern part of the

community, where settlers have been present longest, and where little forest existed in

1986, we see regeneration of forested areas, especially in two riparian corridors which

run north-south through the community. Areas classified as "forest," then, include not

only the remaining original forest but some areas of forest regrowth. Once the secondary

forest reaches a certain stature, it becomes indistinguishable from mature forest on the

satellite image.

In some areas of the community, riparian zones are marked by a steep decline

toward a small stream, and farmers might find these sloped areas unsuitable for

agriculture. Many interviewees cited the protection of water resources as a main reason

for conserving forest. Most families depend on natural springs along this stream as their

source of drinking water, and several farmers told of incidences in which streams had

dried up after the removal of a forest patch, and reappeared as the forest was allowed to

regenerate.

Alternately, GPS points collected in the field suggest that a few of these areas that

appear to be "forested" are actually mature agroforestry systems, which appeared as

young trees in 1986 but are now large enough to be mistaken for forest in the Landsat

classification. Some farmers reported agroforestry systems more than 30 years old that









included some very large trees, primarily rubber (Hevea brasilensis), shade species

planted with cacao, and a few very large fruit trees including j ackfruit (Artocarpus

heterophyllus) and mango (Mangifera spp. ).

The eight westernmost lots in the community were not yet settled in 1986 and were

still completely or mostly forested. INCRA officially demarcated and titled the entire

community in 1997, and at that time several families were relocated to the perimeter of

this forested area. According to local residents, INCRA reasoned that by locating

families around the perimeter of the community forest reserve, invasion of this land by

non-community members could be prevented. Unfortunately, most of the relocated

families were granted completely forested land, and so had no choice but to deforest it.

Sixty-eight percent of the forest on these lots had disappeared by 2001.

Within the community forest reserve, we also see a 3% decrease in forest cover.

This could be accounted for by the fact that a lot on the edge of the reserve was used to

build a second school in the mid 1990s. A visit to the area does indicate some level of

human disturbance and removal of logs, and some families along the perimeter of the

reserve may be using land actually located within the reserve. Although some

degradation is evident, the community forest reserve is still by far the largest patch of

forest in the community, and still the easiest way to conserve forest in Fortaleza, as no

one person has autonomous decision-making power for this land, and the community has

established an expectation for conservation of the area.

A landowner-by-landowner analysis of the lots in the eastern part of Fortaleza

offers good news for the effectiveness of the Jupara program. Current program

participants appear to be far more likely than non-participants to allow forest regrowth on









their properties (or the development of very old agroforestry systems). Forest cover

increased by 20% on participants' lots, compared to an 8% increase on non-participants'

lots, and a 2% increase on former participants' lots. Participants had the least forest in

1986 (14%) and have the most forest of any group now (34%). Participation in a

conservation program may be only one factor influencing this change. Location of the

lots along steep or riparian areas may also be a factor. Some of the participants were

among the first settlers to arrive in Fortaleza in the 1970s, so the development of very old

agroforestry systems or regeneration of more mature forest patches may be a pattern that

develops only after many years of settlement.

Comparison with Interview Data

By interviewing farmers, we can get a more specific idea of the possible land uses

within each of the three categories observable on the image. Interview data represents

the mean of a sample of 30 farmers, while the image analysis includes all 50 properties in

Fortaleza, the community reserve, and two smaller community areas.

Farmers reported a land use distribution fairly consistent with the distribution

observed through image analysis. Farmers reported slightly more forest and agroforestry

than appeared on the image, and slightly less cleared area. This could be because some

young agroforestry systems or recently fallowed areas appeared as cleared areas on the

image classification, or because cleared areas actually decreased between 2001, when the

image was collected and 2005, when the interviews were conducted. Interview data are

based on a representative sample of 30 households, weighted so that participating and

non-participating households are proportionately represented, while the Landsat

classification generated data for all landholdings; this could also explain slight









discrepancies. Overall, the results were similar, and this serves to confirm both the

accuracy of data reported by farmers and of our Landsat classification.

Jupara Program Goals

At the start of the extension program, Jupara program leaders, along with WWF

partners, set goals for forest conservation in participating communities. In Fortaleza, the

goal was to maintain 30% of the community's total area in natural forest. The

community reserve protects about 20% of the total area. On the remaining 80% of the

land, each farmer would have to conserve 12.5% of his or her own plot, to reach the

overall goal of 30% forest cover. Of the 30 farmers interviewed, 14 of them, or 46%,

report that their property meets this goal, when only original forest cover is considered.

According to the image classification, which includes forest regrowth as well as original

forest cover, 46 of the 50 properties, or 92%, meet this goal. The image analysis used a

broader definition of "forest:" regrowth areas that farmers usually define as "( i,,,,it/"

were included here, and very old agroforestry systems may also be included. Including

both the reserve and forested areas on individual lots, 31% of the community area was

forested in 2001, indicating that Fortaleza does meet Jupara's conservation goal, when

areas of regrowth are taken into consideration.

Areas of regrowth may not provide the same conservation benefits as the original

forest, as regrowth areas are likely to be more fragmented and include a different species

composition, and may or may not provide suitable wildlife habitat. At the same time, it is

important that conservation programs like Jupara set goals that are attainable, in order to

maintain the enthusiasm and participation of local residents. Adopting a broader

definition of forest conservation may make goals more attainable, especially in an already

deforested area like Fortaleza. Lots that were settled in the 1970s included little forest









cover in 1986, so regeneration of forested areas is really the best that conservationists can

hope for in this case. Regrowth areas and very old agroforestry systems can provide

important environmental services, such as the protection of water sources, and can act as

corridors between areas of remaining Atlantic Forest. The tendency of participants to

allow forest regrowth to a greater extent than non-participants indicates that the Jupara

program has succeeded in instilling this conservation ethic in Fortaleza.

Directions for Further Study

The accuracy of this assessment could be improved by returning to the field and

collecting additional GPS points in Fortaleza, especially in areas of forest regrowth. A

random sample of these areas could be visited to determine whether they are in fact areas

of forest regrowth or very old agroforestry, and the age of the regrowth or agroforestry.

Additional fieldwork could also help to more accurately locate properties on the satellite

image. Walking the perimeter of a few representative properties with a GPS might be

one way to accomplish this.

The community forest reserve also merits further research. While forest cover is

increasing outside of the reserve, the remote sensing analysis indicates some degradation

of the reserve itself. Who is using this area? Do users have the permission of the larger

community to use this community resource? Community reserves are one effective way

to set aside some of the larger fragments of remaining Atlantic Forest. The agrarian

reform movement is constantly establishing new communities throughout Southern

Bahia, and many include a community forest reserve. An in-depth study of the

management of these reserves in well-established communities such as Fortaleza might

allow planners to more appropriately select areas for community reserves and create

management plans for the long term-conservation of these reserves.














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS

As with any large project, the Jupara Agroecology Project had its strengths and

weaknesses. The project did have a notable impact on the use of organic agricultural

practices in the three communities studied, as shown in Chapters 2 and 3. The project

also had many qualitative benefits that were not necessarily captured here, including

improving community organizations, developing leaders, strengthening women's

participation in agriculture and community organizations, and improving farmers'

attitudes toward conservation. Almost all of the farmers interviewed, participants and

non-participants alike, spoke very highly of the program and its benefits to the

community. Specific comments from participants included the following:

"I learned to preserve nature, to work in an agroecological system, and to stop
killing insects that could be beneficial." Aloisio, Lagoa Santa


"I learned to speak in an assembly and not be timid. I gained knowledge of both
agriculture and commercialization." -Andre, Lagoa Santa


"I learned to dialogue better with people. If you have a problem, you can discuss it
with others and know that it's not so serious." -Maria, Fortaleza


Interview data indicated that the project may not have consistently met its goals for

forest conservation in Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa. In Cascata, the forest conservation

goal was met through the establishment of a large community reserve. The remote

sensing analysis in Chapter 4 helps present a clearer picture of the dynamics of land use

change in Fortaleza. Although the overall amount of forest cover remained almost









constant between 1986 and 2001, forest cover increased on older family lots and

decreased within the forest reserve area as some parts of the reserve were converted to

family lots after properties were reassigned by INCRA. All of the project participants

were situated on older lots and had little natural forest left to conserve when the project

began in 1995, but we do see a trend in forest regrowth in Fortaleza, and it appears that

project participants are allowing more forest regrowth on their properties than non-

participants.

This research could be strengthened by designing similar remote sensing analyses

for Lagoa Santa and Cascata, and for the regional landscape. Each community has a

distinct land use history, and each could offer an independent and interesting land use and

land cover change study.

The land use data presented here also highlight the importance of collecting

baseline data when a project like this begins, in order to set feasible conservation goals

and more accurately monitor progress toward these goals. Communities are very large,

and some kinds of agroforestry systems and forests in this region may look alike at first

glance. It would be easy for an extensionist attending a community meeting or visiting a

limited number of families to misestimate the distribution of land uses if no rigorous data

collection were carried out. Jupara's original conservation goals, which seem to have

been set somewhat arbitrarily, may not have been very feasible if little forest was left to

conserve in the target communities. Goals might have included the establishment of

forest reserves by allowing forest regrowth, rather than, or in addition to, conserving

existing forests. The participatory mapping activity indicated that many farmers had

never given much thought to the overall landscape of their farms and the spatial









arrangement of land uses. A similar activity at the outset of a conservation program

would allow farmers to conceptualize what is present and plan changes that might be

possible for future years. The use of remote sensing is also an excellent tool for

conservation planning, when this technology is available. Collecting baseline data could

allow Jupara and other conservation organizations to focus their efforts on communities

where conservation goals are most likely to be met. Communities involved in this project

were selected mainly based on their proximity to the Una Reserve, or in some cases, their

longstanding relationship with Jupara and involvement in past Jupara projects.

Jupara also hoped to increase family incomes. Participating families do tend to

have higher agricultural incomes than non-participating ones, but this could be because

wealthier families, or families depending more heavily on agriculture for their income,

tended to participate in the project more often than other families. When fieldwork was

completed in 2005, farmers in Cascata were marketing their cacao collectively through

the Coopasb cooperative and receiving a higher price because the cacao was organic.

Cargill, an international exporter of various agricultural products, was the main buyer of

Coopasb's organic cacao. In 2006, Cargill decided to stop offering a premium price for

organic certified cacao, and this year Cascata farmers sold their organic cacao to local

buyers for the same price as non-certified cacao.

Farmers in Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa did not report an increase in income as a

result of participation in the cooperative. Most did not regularly sell products through the

cooperative. Coopasb has been most active in the marketing of organic cacao, which is

advantageous for cacao communities like Cascata, but less advantageous for communities

with mixed production, like Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa. Perhaps in the future they will




Full Text

PAGE 1

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

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Kathleen R. Painter

PAGE 3

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

PAGE 4

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

PAGE 5

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

PAGE 6

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

PAGE 7

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

PAGE 8

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

PAGE 9

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

PAGE 10

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

PAGE 11

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

PAGE 12

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

PAGE 13

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

PAGE 14

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

PAGE 15

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

PAGE 16

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

PAGE 17

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

PAGE 18

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

PAGE 19

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

PAGE 20

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

PAGE 21

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

PAGE 22

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

PAGE 23

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

PAGE 24

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

PAGE 25

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

PAGE 26

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

PAGE 27

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

PAGE 28

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

PAGE 29

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

PAGE 30

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

PAGE 31

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

PAGE 32

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

PAGE 33

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

PAGE 34

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

PAGE 35

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

PAGE 36

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

PAGE 37

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

PAGE 38

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

PAGE 39

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

PAGE 40

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

PAGE 41

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

PAGE 42

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

PAGE 43

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

PAGE 44

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

PAGE 45

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

PAGE 46

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

PAGE 47

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

PAGE 48

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

PAGE 49

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

PAGE 50

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

PAGE 51

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

PAGE 52

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

PAGE 53

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

PAGE 54

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

PAGE 55

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

PAGE 56

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

PAGE 57

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

PAGE 58

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

PAGE 59

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

PAGE 60

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

PAGE 61

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

PAGE 62

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

PAGE 63

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

PAGE 64

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

PAGE 65

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

PAGE 66

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

PAGE 67

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

PAGE 68

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

PAGE 69

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

PAGE 70

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

PAGE 71

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

PAGE 72

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

PAGE 73

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

PAGE 74

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

PAGE 75

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

PAGE 76

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

PAGE 77

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

PAGE 78

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

PAGE 79

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

PAGE 80

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

PAGE 81

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

PAGE 82

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

PAGE 83

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

PAGE 84

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

PAGE 85

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

PAGE 86

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

PAGE 87

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

PAGE 88

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

PAGE 89

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

PAGE 90

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

PAGE 91

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

PAGE 92

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

PAGE 93

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

PAGE 94

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

PAGE 95

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

PAGE 96

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

PAGE 97

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

PAGE 98

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

PAGE 99

88 constant between 1986 and 2001, forest cover increased on older family lots and decreased within the forest re serve area as some parts of th e reserve were converted to family lots after properties were reassigned by INCRA. All of the project participants were situated on older lots and had little natural forest left to conserve when the project began in 1995, but we do see a trend in forest regrowth in Fortaleza, and it appears that project participants are allowing more fo rest regrowth on their properties than nonparticipants. This research could be strengthened by de signing similar remote sensing analyses for Lagoa Santa and Cascata, and for the regional landscape. Each community has a distinct land use history, and each could offe r an independent and interesting land use and land cover change study. The land use data presented here also highlight the importance of collecting baseline data when a project like this begins, in order to set feasible conservation goals and more accurately monitor progress toward these goals. Communities are very large, and some kinds of agroforestry systems and fo rests in this region may look alike at first glance. It would be easy for an extensionist attending a community meeting or visiting a limited number of families to misestimate the distribution of land uses if no rigorous data collection were carried out. Jupars original conservation goals, which seem to have been set somewhat arbitrarily, may not have been very feasible if little forest was left to conserve in the target communities. Goals might have included the establishment of forest reserves by allowing forest regrowth, rather than, or in addition to, conserving existing forests. The participatory mappi ng activity indicated that many farmers had never given much thought to the overall landscape of their farms and the spatial

PAGE 100

89 arrangement of land uses. A similar activity at the outse t of a conservation program would allow farmers to conceptualize what is present and plan changes that might be possible for future years. The use of remo te sensing is also an excellent tool for conservation planning, when this technology is av ailable. Collecting baseline data could allow Jupar and other conservation organiza tions to focus their efforts on communities where conservation goals are most likely to be met. Communities invo lved in this project were selected mainly based on their proximity to the Una Reserve, or in some cases, their longstanding relationship with Jupar and involvement in past Jupar projects. Jupar also hoped to increase family inco mes. Participating families do tend to have higher agricultural incomes than non-part icipating ones, but this could be because wealthier families, or families depending more heavily on agriculture for their income, tended to participate in the project more often than other families. When fieldwork was completed in 2005, farmers in Cascata were marketing their cacao collectively through the Coopasb cooperative and receiving a highe r price because the cacao was organic. Cargill, an international expor ter of various agricultural pro ducts, was the main buyer of Coopasbs organic cacao. In 2006, Cargill deci ded to stop offering a premium price for organic certified cacao, and this year Cascata farmers sold their organic cacao to local buyers for the same price as non-certified cacao. Farmers in Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa did not report an increase in income as a result of participation in th e cooperative. Most did not re gularly sell products through the cooperative. Coopasb has been most active in the marketing of organic cacao, which is advantageous for cacao communities like Cascata, but less advantageous for communities with mixed production, like Fortaleza and Lagoa Santa. Perhaps in the future they will

PAGE 101

90 be able to increase the mark eting opportunities for organic products other than cacao, but due to a combination of organizational and mark et factors, efforts to date have not been successful. Jupars current work in Cascata and other communities on cacao estates has been highly successful both in terms of conser vation and production of organic cacao. By providing environmental educat ion and other support servic es to encampments, Jupar gains access to these communities early and begins educating future farmers before any land use decisions are made. In addition, by participating actively in the land reform process, Jupar contributes to decisions about where new communities are placed and is able to request areas of c onservation value and preserve some of these areas as community reserves. Because these commun ities are newer to the project, long-term evaluation of conservation outcomes will be ne cessary in the future. As we saw in Fortaleza, community forest reserves can al so experience degradat ion over the long term if a specific management and mon itoring plan is not in place. Jupar faced a number of challenges and lim itations, budgetary and otherwise, that sometimes limited their impact in communities. Some farmers complained that extension support was sporadic or inconsistent, whic h was often due to budgetary limitations. WWF funds were provided for only a limited time span, and when this funding came to an end, Jupar struggled even more to fulfill commitments in a large number of communities with limited staff and resources. They have worked in more than 30 communities since the project began and now receive numerous requests from interested communities, especially encampment communitie s. In some cases, they have been successful in training community members as extensionists and having members of new

PAGE 102

91 settlements volunteer to offer support to enca mpments. Although it is difficult to turn away interested farmers, it might be beneficial to limit the number of communities so that a smaller number of communities could be served more effectively. Jupar is not the only conservation and development organization in Southern Bahia. Other local resources include several other conser vation and land reform NGOs, a university, a government-run cacao research cen ter (CEPLAC), and several corporations including Cargill, a large exporter of cacao a nd other products. Historically, Jupars efforts to collaborate with ot her organizations have been le ss than successful, including one collaboration effort that resulted in half of the participants in Fortaleza dropping out of the project after a conflict between Jupar and a nother NGO. Collaborations with other organizations could strengthen Jupars efforts in the regions, if these organizations are selected carefully and expect ations are clearly defined. The results of this project support many of the statements made by other authors concerning integrated conservation and de velopment projects (ICDPs). ICDPs do involve local residents and prom ote a conservation ethic that outright purchase of land or establishment of off-limits protected areas might not (Schwartzman et al. 2000). At the same time, ICDPs often lack functional linka ges between specific development activities and desired conservation outcomes (Browder 2002) The use of organi c agroforestry and resulting increased incomes do not, on their own, prevent deforestation (Alger 1998). Forest conservation requires a related but separate proce ss of landscape-level planning, especially in fragmented ecosystems like the Atlantic Forest, and in smallholder communities where landholdings are small. In addition, Jupar supports a third and equally challenging process, that of agrari an land reform. Through adequate support of

PAGE 103

92 all three of these processes, agrarian reform, organic ag riculture implementation, and landscape conservation planning, Jupar has great potential to influence the development of communities that are both fi nancially stable and environmentally aware. This will require careful planning and continuous monitoring, appropriate selection of communities, and use of a variety of local resources.

PAGE 104

93 LIST OF REFERENCES Adesina, A. A., and J. Chianu. 2002. Determinan ts of farmers' adoption and adaptation of alley farming technology in Nigeria. Agroforestry Systems 55 :99-112. Aguiar, A. P., A. G. Chiarello, S. L. Mende s, and E. Neri de Matos. 2003. The Central and Serra do Mar Corridors in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest Pages 118-132 in I. de Gusmo Cmara, editor. The Atlantic Fo rest of South America. Biodiversity status, threats, and outlook. Island Press, Washington, DC. Albers, H., and E. Grinspoon. 1997. A comp arison of the enforcement of access restrictions between Xishuangbanna Na ture Reserve (China) and Khao Yai National Park (Thailand). Environmental Conservation 24 :351-362. Alger, K. 1998. The Reproduction of the Coco a Industry and Biodive rsity Southern in Bahia, Brazil. First International Workshop on Sustainable Cocoa Growing. Smithsonian Institute, Panama. Available from http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Conservation AndScience/MigratoryBirds/Research/Cacao (Accessed Oct. 2004). Alger, K., and M. Caldas. 1994. The declining cocoa economy and the Atlantic Forest of Southern Bahia, Brazil: Conservation attitudes of cocoa planters. The Environmentalist 14 :107-119. Alves, M. C. 1990. The role of cacao plantatio ns in the conservation of the Atlantic Forest of Southern Bahia, Brazil. Mast ers Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. Alvim, R., and P. K. Nair. 1986. Conminati on of cacao with other plantation crops: an agroforestry system in Southeast Ba hia, Brazil. Agroforestry Systems 4 :2-15. Araujo, M. H. S. 1997. Diagnstico de uso y aptido agrcola da s terras de regio de Una (BA) utilizando tcnicas de geoprocessamento. Master s thesis, Facultade de Engenharia Agrcola. Universidade Esta dual de Campinas, Campinas, So Paulo, Brazil. Bannister, M. E., and P. K. Nair. 2003. Agrofo restry adoption in Ha iti: The importance of household and farm characteris tics. Agroforestry Systems 57 :149-157. Blom, A. 1998. A critical analysis of three approaches to tropical forest conservation based on experiences in the Sa ngha region. Yale F&ES Bulletin 102 :208-215.

PAGE 105

94 Boahene, K., T. A. B. Snijders, and H. Folmer. 1999. An integrated socioeconomic analysis of innovation adopti on: The case of hybrid ca cao in Ghana. Journal of Policy Modeling 21 :167-184. Brandon, K., K. H. Redford, and S. E. Sande rson 1998. Parks in peril: People parks and protected areas. Island Press, Washington, DC. Brechin, S. R., P. R. Wilshusen, C. L. Fortwangler, and P. C. West. 2002. Beyond the square wheel: Toward a more comprehe nsive understandi ng of biodiversity conservation as social and political pr ocess. Society and Natural Resources 15 :4164. Browder, J. O. 2002. Conservation and develo pment projects in the Brazilian Amazon: Lessons from the community initiative program in Rondonia. Environmental Management 29 :750-762. Browder, J. O., and M. A. Pedlowski. 2000. Agroforestry performance on small farms in Amazonia: Findings from the Rondonia agro forestry pilot project. Agroforestry Systems 49 :63-83. Browder, J. O., R. H. Wynne, and M. A. Pedlowski. 2005. Agroforestry diffusion and secondary forest regeneration in the Brazi lian Amazon: further findings from the Rondonia Agroforestry Pilot Project (1992-2002). Agroforestry Systems 65 :99111. Buschbacher, R. in prep. O Movimento Agroeco logico do Sul da Bahia: Um modelo de agricultura familiar na reforma agrria vi sando a conservao da Mata Atlntica. Srie Tcnico do World Wildlife Fund (WWF ). Esboo para circulao interna. Conservation International. 2006. Corredor Centra l da Mata Atlntica. Available from http://www.conservation.org.br/onde /mata_atlantica/index.php?id=43. (Accessed May 2006). Cooms, O. T., and G. J. Burt. 1997. Indigenous market-oriented agroforestry: dissecting local diversity in western Amazonia. Agroforestry Systems 37 :1997. Cullen, L., K. Alger, and D. M. Ramb aldi. 2005. Land reform and biodiversity conservation in Brazil in the 1990s: Conf lict and the articulation of mutual interests. Conservation Biology 19 :747-755. Deitz, J. M., S. N. F. Sousa, and J. R. O. Silva. 1994. Population dynamics of goldenheaded lion tamarins Leontopithecus chry somelas in Una Reserve, Brazil. Dodo Journal of the JerseyWildlife Preservation Trust 32 :115-122. Domingos. 2002. Land Reform in Brazil. La nd Action Research Network, Country Overview. Available from http://www.landaction.org/galler y/AgReformBrazil%201-3-PDF.pdf. (Accessed April 2006).

PAGE 106

95 Greenberg, R. 1998. Biodiversity in the cacao agroecosystem: Shade management and landscape considerations. First International Workshop on Sustainable Cocoa Growing. Smithsonian Institution, Panama. Available from http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Conservation AndScience/MigratoryBirds/Research/Cacao (Accessed Oct. 2004). Greenberg, R., P. Bichier, and A. C. A ngon. 2000. The conservation value for birds of cacao plantations with diverse plante d shade in Tabasco, Mexico. Animal Conservation 3 :105-112. Guanes Rego, L. F., and B. Koch. 2003. Automa tic classification of land cover with high resolution data of the Rio de Ja neiro City, Brazil. Pages 172-176.in 2nd GRSS/ISPRS Workshop on Data Fusion a nd Remote Sensing over Urban Areas. Hirota, M. M. 2003. Monitoring the Brazilian Atla ntic Forest cover. Pages60-65 in I. de Gusmo Cmara, editor. The Atlantic Fo rest of South Amrica. Biodiversity status, threats, and outlook. Island Press, Washington, DC. Instituto Nacional de Colonizao e Refo rma Agraria (INCRA). 2006. Available at www.incra.gov.br (Accessed May 2006). Johns, N. D. 1999. Conservation in Brazil's choc olate forest: The unlik ely persistence of the traditional cocoa agroecosyst em. Environmental Management 23 :31-47. Johnson, A., P. Igag, R. Bino, and P. Huka hu. 2001. Community-based conservation area management in Papua New Guinea: Adap ting to changing policy and practice. Pages 351-367 in E. Wollenberg, editor. Bi ological diversity: balancing interests through adaptive collaborative management. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Kamugisha, J. R., Z. A. Ogutu, and M. Stahl 1997. Parks and pe ople: Conservation & livelihoods at the crossroads English Press, Nairobi. Kramer, R. A., C. P. van Schaik, and J. J ohnson 1997. The last stand: Protected areas and the defense of tropical biodiversit y. Oxford University, New York. Kremen, C., A. M. Merenlender, and D. D. Murphy. 1994. Ecological monitoring A vital need for integrated conservation a nd development programs in the tropics. Conservation Biology 8 :388-397. Laurance, S. G. W. 2004. Landscape connectiv ity and biological co rridors. Pages 50-63 in A. N. Izac, editor. Agroforestry a nd biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Island Pre ss, Washington, DC. Lemos Costa, K. 2000. Dinmica da cobertura fl orestal na regio de Una, Bahia, Mata Atlntica, a partir da an lise de imagens de satlite (1985-1998). Masters thesis. Departamento de Ingenharia Florestal. Universidade de Braslia, Braslia, BR.

PAGE 107

96 McCracken, S. D., B. Boucek, and E. F. Mo ran. 2002. Deforestation trajectories in a frontier region of the Brazilian Amazon in K. A. Crews-Meyer, editor. Linking people, place, and policy, a GIS science approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA. Mercer, D. E. 2004. Adoption of agroforest ry innovations in th e tropics: A review. Agroforestry Systems 61 :311-328. Mittermeier, R. A., N. Myers, and C. G. Mittermeier 1999. Hotspots: Earth's Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. Cemex. Movimento Sem Terra (MST). 2006. Available from: www.mst.org.br. (Accessed May 2006). Murniati, D., P. Garrity, and A. N. Ginti ngs. 2001. The contribution of agroforestry systems to reducing farmers' dependence on the resources of adjacent national parks: a case study from Sumatra, Indonesia. Agroforestry Systems 52 :171-184. Neupane, R. P., K. R. Sharma, and G. B. Thapa. 2002. Adoption of agroforestry in the hills of Nepal: a logistic regression analysis. Agricultural Systems 72 :177-196. Olson, J. D. 1998. A digital model of pattern and productivity in an agroforestry landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 42 :169-189. Pardini, R. 2004. Effects of forest fragmenta tion on small mammals in an Atlantic Forest landscape. Biodiversity and Conservation 13 :2567-2586. Pattanayak, S. K., D. E. Mercer, E. S ills, and J. C. Yang. 2003. Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agroforestry Systems 57 :137-150. Perz, S. G. 2004. Are agricultural produc tion and forest conservation compatible? Agricultural diversity, agricultural income s and primary forest cover among small farm colonists in the Amazon. World Development 32 :957-977. Peters, J. 1998. Transforming the integrat ed conservation and development project (ICDP) approach: Observations from the Ranomafana National Park Project, Madagascar. Journal of Agricult ural and Environmental Ethics. 11 :17-47. Reitsma, R., J. D. Parrish, and W. McLarney. 2001. The role of cacao plantations in maintaining forest avian diversity in southeastern Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems 53 :185-193. Rice, R. A., and R. Greenberg. 2000. Cacao cul tivation and the conservation of biological diversity. Ambio 29 :167-173.

PAGE 108

97 Rindfuss, R. R., B. Entwisle, S. J. Walsh, P. Prasartkul, Y. Sawangdee, T. W. Crawford, and J. Reade. 2002. Continuous and discre te: where they have met in Nang Rong, Thailand. Pages 8-37 in K. A. Crews-Meye r, editor. Linking people, place, and policy, a GIS science approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA. Ruf, F., and G. Schroth. 2004. Chocolate forests and monocultures: A hi storical review of cocoa growing and its conf licting role in tropical de forestation and forest conservation. Pages 107-134 in A. N. Izac, editor. Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscap es. Island Press, Washington, DC. Saatchi, S., D. Agosti, K. Alger, J. Delabie, and J. Musinsky. 2001. Examining fragmentation and loss of primary forest in the southern Bahian Atlantic forest of Brazil with radar imagery. Conservation Biology 15 :867-875. Sader, S., R. B. Waide, W. T. Lawrence, a nd A. Joyce. 1989. Tropical forest biomass and successional age class relationships to a ve getation index derived from Landsat TM data. Remote Sensing of the Environment 28 :143-156. Scherr, S. J. 1995. Economic factors in fa rmer adoption of agroforestry: patterns observed in Western Ke nya. World Development 23 :787-804. Scherr, S. J. 2000. A downward spiral? Resear ch evidence on the re lationship between poverty and natural resour ce degradation. Food Policy 25 :479-498. Schwartzman, S., A. Moreira, and D. Ne pstad. 2000a. Rethinking tropical forest conservation: Perils in pa rks. Conservation Biology 14 :1351-1357. Schwartzman, S., D. Nepstad, and A. Moreira. 2000b. Arguing tropical forest conservation: People versus parks. Conservation Biology 14 :1370-1374. Simmons, C. S., R. T. Walker, and C. H. Wood. 2002. Tree planting by small producers in the tropics: A comparative study of Br azil and Panama. Agroforestry Systems 56 :89-105. Stedile, J. P., and F. Srgio 1993. A luta pe la terra no Brasil. Editora Pgina Aberta Limitada, So Paulo. Sunderlin, W. D., O. Ndoye, H. Bikie, N. Laporte, B. Mertens, and J. Pokam. 2000. Economic crisis, small-scale agriculture, and forest c over change in southern Cameroon. Environmental Conservation 27 :284-290. Tefilo, and Garcia. 2003. Brazil, land politic s, poverty and rural development in P. Groppo, editor. Land reform, land settlement, and cooperatives. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. Terborgh, J. 1999. Requiem for nature. Isla nd Press/Shearwater Books, Washington, DC.

PAGE 109

98 Thomas, W. W., A. A. M. V. de Carvalho, A. M. A. Amorim, J. Garrison, and A. L. Arbelaez. 1998. Plant endemism in two forests in southern Bahia, Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation 7 :311-322. Trevizan, S. D. P. 1998. Uma relao sociedade-naturaleza: A crise de cacau e o movimento social pela terra no sul da Ba hia nos anos 90. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural da SOBER.. Trevizan, S. D. P. 1999. Reforma agrria e meio ambiente. Revista de cincias agrrias. 32 :65-80. University of Maryland. 2006. The Global Land C over Change Facility. Available from: http://glcfapp.umiacs.umd.edu:8080/esdi/index.jsp. (Accessed May 2006). Vance, C., and J. Geoghegan. 2002. Temporal and spatial modelling of tropical deforestation: a survival analysis linking satellite and household survey data. Agricultural Economics 27 :317-332. Vosti, S. A., J. Witcover, S. Olivei ra, and M. Faminow. 1997. Policy issues in agroforestry: Technology adoption and regiona l integration in the western Brazilian Amazon. Agroforestry Systems 38 :195-222. Walsh, S. J., J. P. Medina, K. A. Crews-Me yer, R. E. Bilsborrow, and W. K. Y. Pan. 2002. Characterizing and modeling patterns of deforestation and agricultural extensification in the Ecuadorian Amaz on Pages 187-214 in K. A. Crews-Meyer, editor. Linking people, place, and policy, a GIS science approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA. Wells, M., S. Guggenheim, A. Kahn, W. Wardojo, and P. Jepson 1999. Investing in biodiversity: A review of Indonesia's in tegrated conservation and development projects. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

PAGE 110

99 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kathleen Painter was born and raised in Maryland. She attended St. Marys College of Maryland and graduated in 2000 w ith a B.A. in biology and Spanish. Her undergraduate studies included one semester abroad at the Universidad San Francisco de Quito in Ecuador. Kathleen served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Paraguay from 2000 2002, where she worked as an agroforestry ex tensionist in a small rural community and developed her interest in inte rnational development work. Pr ior to attending UF she also worked as a Spanish teacher at Golden Ring Middle School in Baltimore.