Family farming supplies the table of Brazilians – 07/12/2023 – Market

Reason for political clashes, family farming is not always understood within the Brazilian agricultural production system. The term itself circulates in the field of small producers, who do not necessarily have the same classification criteria as family farming.

The concept of family farming dates back to the 1964 Land Statute. Its basic guidelines, still in effect, were established in 2006, according to Elisio Contini, a former researcher at Embrapa (Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation) and agribusiness consultant.

The family farmer must have a portion of land of up to four fiscal modules. These vary according to the region and range from 5 to 110 hectares (one hectare equals 10,000 m²).

At least half of the labor used in the activity of the property must be family members, and the income must come predominantly from rural activities. Management must be strictly family-owned.

Within these parameters, the 2017 Agricultural Census, the most recent available, includes 3.9 million establishments out of the 5.1 million existing at the time in the country, that is, 77% of the total. Today, it is estimated that there are almost 7 million rural properties.

The numbers of the last census registered a shrinkage of the family activity, in relation to 2010. There was a decrease of 9.5% in the establishments; reduction of 2.2 million in the number of workers and the cultivated area was 0.5% smaller in the period.

According to the IBGE, responsible for the census, family farming occupies 23% of the total cultivated area in the country.

Aristides Veras dos Santos, president of Contag (National Confederation of Rural Workers, Farmers and Family Farmers) highlights the number of small areas occupied by family farming.

Of the 3.9 million establishments, 1.8 million have less than five hectares, corresponding to 4.6 soccer fields. The difficulty is great to produce in such small areas, says Santos.

With regard to how much the sector produces, there are divergences. The number that circulates attributes to family farming the production of 70% of the food that goes to the consumer’s table.

Santos says that it is a difficult number to calculate, but that “most of the food consumed comes from family farming”.

Contini states that the volume of 70% of total food supply by family farming is debatable. He cites, for example, that much of the rice currently produced comes from large producers in Rio Grande do Sul.

Former Minister of Agriculture Luis Carlos Guedes Pinto highlights the importance of family producers in the national supply. The income, however, is small. Of the 5.1 million establishments reported by the 2017 industry census, 4.75 million declared some income.

Among them, 10% were left with just 0.06% of the VBP (Gross Production Value), an indicator of producer revenue based on prices received within the property and volumes produced.

If half of these establishments are considered, their total income is only 1.54% in VBP. In the former minister’s calculations, 90% of these establishments were left with only 12.95% of the VBP.

At the other end, only 10% of medium and large establishments obtained 87% of the indicator’s revenues.

The importance of family farming is evident in fruits, vegetables and some basic products. At least 80% of cassava production comes from these producers, who are also responsible for supplying 69% of the pineapple supply and 42% of the beans consumed.

Despite the strength of Brazilian agribusiness and leaps in productivity, 33 million people were going hungry in the country in 2022, according to Rede Penssan (Brazilian Research Network on Food and Nutritional Sovereignty and Security), based on Vox Populi research.

Contini says he has an optimistic and hopeful view of the sector, although the activity has several bottlenecks. The sector suffers from market imperfections, but governments have made great efforts since the 2000s.

There are creative solutions and the area has business sense. The biggest problem is in the Northeast, where 47.2% of family farming establishments are concentrated. The government’s participation in the basic aid programs, mainly in the water and in the Bolsa Familia are fundamental, says Contini.

He warns, however, that this situation cannot last for 50 years. It is necessary to develop ways for these producers to walk with their own legs.

The development of family farming could even come from the external sector, via cooperativism, which helps to overcome market imperfections. Globalization and greater demand for food can help development.

The agribusiness consultant says, however, that several problems persist. Among them, land titling, settlements far from consumer markets, poor infrastructure, lack of connectivity and quality education, among others.

For Santos, from Contag, one of the major problems is the difficulty in accessing credit, mainly due to lack of ownership of the land.

The precarious infrastructure makes it difficult to sell production and there are obstacles to marketing, since not all municipalities have fairs for family farming or have public food acquisition systems in place.

Santos believes that a process is underway that will move forward. The Crop Plan for Family Agriculture was positive, given the government budget restrictions, but the money needs to be made available by the banks. For him, the 2024/25 Crop Plan will be more efficient.

Incentives for women, young people, agroecology and new technologies, especially small machines coming from China, could give the sector a boost.

The lack of technology and innovation causes a large number of young people to leave the countryside in search of work outside the property. In the last six years, 300,000 of them left agriculture, according to Santos.

Use of technology is an important step, says Contini. Agriculture has been transformed in recent decades, with a lot of innovation and new technologies, but most producers have remained on the sidelines of this process.

In recent years, family farming, aimed at the domestic market, has not benefited from the evolution of international food prices and the rise in the dollar.

On the contrary, it suffered the effects of rising inputs caused by the devaluation of the real. Contini says that the small producer, without scale, buys the most expensive inputs and sells his products under more disadvantageous conditions.

The restriction of land, capital, water and the absence of mechanization make these producers even more victims of market imperfections.