The study examines the intervention effect of methodologies conducted by the technical
assistance provided by the Proambiente program to different smallholder groups (agroextractivist,
agriculturalist, diversified, wage-laborer, and small-rancher) in the program’s Rio
Capim site. The study indicates that Use Plans and Community Agreements affect the
strategies of every group and reveal their intention of intervening in the agroecosystem, as
capacity building of smallholders and extension agents was able to link technical knowledge
and smallholders’ traditional knowledge. The study highlights significant contributions of the
technical assistance due to the agroecological approach provided by family capacity units,
which consist of a venue for empirical and technical formation. In addition, it shows the
difficulty in the execution of some labor-demanding agroecological practices. In those cases,
several groups adopt productive strategies such as labor contracting, and communitarian
strategies such as labor-pooling, labor-exchange, and labor exchange through labor-pooling,
as well as kindred and neighborhood strategies. Labor-pooling events are often mentioned as
a primary strategy to promote the associative spirit among smallholders and are often used by
families studied, being significantly adopted in the implementation of agroecological
practices. They are often used collectively, and stimulate mutual learning, dialog and sharing
of experiences. On the other hand, the adoption of these new practices do not ensure
production, subsistence, or social reproduction, as there is no risk-avoidance mechanism to
reduce the impact of eventual losses or frustrations resulting from the higher investment and
physical efforts required by agroecological activities. Therefore, traditional practices that
provide food security and ensure the survival of the household are preferred despite the fact
they might result in lower economic outcomes and little concern with natural resource
conservation. They are preferred by different smallholder groups, however, given the risk and
uncertainty represented by the Proambiente program. What lacks in the program is greater
security in the conditions such as differential commercialization and marketing strategy for
agroecological products, and for the payment of environmental services, which has not been
activated. Mainly, there is no continuity of financial resources for the provision of technical
assistance, what jeopardizes the entire program, as the Communitarian Agreements and Use
Plans should be continuously monitored in the face of changes in the biophysical and
socioeconomic setting, and therefore require continuous adjustment.
|
