The Agrarian Consequences of Brazil s Recent Sugar Industry Expansion 1

Transcription

1 1 The Agrarian Consequences of Brazil s Recent Sugar Industry Expansion 1 Tamás Szmrecsányi (DPCT/IG/UNICAMP) Luiz Octávio Ramos Filho (CNPMA/EMBRAPA) During the last few years, Brazil s economic and political elites, as well as the media and the intellectuals controlled by them, have been enthusiastically praising the great contribution provided by agribusiness (agronegócio) to the present development, modernization and progress of our country. Amongst the products responsible for its performance, sugar and ethanol hold a proeminent position thanks to the recent expansion of the local sugar mills, alcohol distilleries and cane fields, by which Brazil became once again, as at the beginning of its colonial times, the industry s main world producer and exporter. This paper will deal with some agrarian dimensions of that process, characterizing their spatial and structural trends in terms of land use specialization, of land ownership concentration, and of rural employment opportunities for common or nonspecialized labour. Since the second half of the 1990s, sugarcane has been occupying without interruption the third place in the harvested areas of nation s major crops led by corn and soya beans. That was also the time when the latter became Brazil s most cultivated crop and one of its main export staples; for this reason, it can be taken as a starting point of our current agronegócios s era. Before its beginning, corn a traditional and basic ingredient of both human and animal nutrition had been for most of the time the country s leading crop, with sugar occupying the fifth place in the l980s and the fourth in part of the 1990s, behind two other traditional Brazilian foodstuffs, beans and rice. The last twenty years evolution of Brazil s ten main agricultural products can be seen on Table I; according to it, sugarcane occupied in 2005 a little more than l0.4 per cent of their harvested areas, totalizing around 61 million hectares. Although this participation rate doesn t seem excessive on a national level, having been even larger in some former years (for instance in 2000, as shown by the table), it may well increase considerably in the near future, even taking into account the country s still open agricultural frontier. And, on the other hand, the pervasiveness and expansion of sugarcane s harvested areas tend to be more dramatically felt at the regional level of its four main producing states: Pernambuco and Alagoas in the Northeast, and São Paulo and Paraná in the south-eastern and southern parts of the country. According to Tables II-V, three of them have had sugarcane as their main crop for many years, or even for most of their historical times, as in the case of Pernambuco, whose participation rates are more than three times bigger than the national ones, but where the situation appears to be much less extreme than in Alagoas, whose sugarcane covered almost 60 per cent of these areas. In both of them sugarcane areas seem to have reached an upper limit to their expansion, but the same does not appear to hold for the other two states. In São Paulo, the country s most developed state, the harvested areas of the product 1 Preliminary draft of a paper to be presented at a session on Changing Land Use and Rural Conflict in Brazil of LASA s XXVI International Congress, to be held in San Juan (Puerto Rico), March 15 18, Not to be quoted or reproduced. 1

2 2 increased from thousand hectares to thousand ten years later, and then again from thousand to thousand hectares between 2000 and 2005, reaching in that last year a participation rate of almost 50 per cent. These trends only seem to be more favourable in the state of Paraná, where sugarcane s participation rates have remained relatively low despite the fact that its sugarcane harvested areas did more than double between 1985 and This expansion was sufficient to transform it into the country s second sugarcane producer, definitely surpassing Alagoas in the first years of the current decade; and still more is being announced for the near future. 2 We have started our analysis from the harvested areas instead of doing it from the data on sugarcane production, shown by Tables VI and VII, due to the extensive nature of sugarcane s cultivation. The first of these tables presents the evolution of the ranking of all producing states during these last twenty years. Through it we can see that São Paulo has remained at the top, increasing its participation rates from around 51 per cent to almost 60, and that the Northeastern states of Pernambuco have fallen behind, being supplanted by Paraná and Minas Gerais, although the latter still produces quite a lot of cane for the manufacture of brandy (cachaça) and of artisanal sugar (rapadura). On a much lower level, the productions of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul have been expanding substantially, while the opposite has occurred with that of the state of Rio de Janeiro, formerly an important producer within the country. Table VII presents the same data in a more aggregate and compact form, comparable to those of tables VIII and IX, which show the harvested areas and their yields for the same states. Besides being fundamentally a monoculture which expels and substitutes other crops, the increase of its production through time has more to do with the spatial expansion of the culture than with the growth of its yields per area. This can be demonstrated by comparing the index numbers within each state plotted on table X. Through them one can see that, as a rule, the variations of production tend to be much closer to those of harvested areas than to yields per area. Though moderately, these have expanded everywhere except in Pernambuco, but usually less than harvested areas. This, however, is still not the end of the story. In addition to increasing, sometimes excessively, land use specialization by reducing the relevance of other crops, the expansion of sugarcane cultivation also brings about two other undesirable consequences, namely the growth of land ownership concentration, and the decrease of rural employment opportunities for non-specialized or general labour. In relation to the first of these two issues, it is important to remind that, contrarily to what happens in other sugar producing countries (both from beet and cane), the Brazilian industry has tended to remain vertically integrated, with the mill owners being also, and perhaps mostly, the owners of the greatest part of available land. This traditional plantation system has characterized the country s sugar industry since the earliest colonial times, giving origin to the formation huge latifundia both in the past and in our own times, a feature that still can be perceived through the Agricultural Census data. By comparing the data of the last two censitarian surveys (of 1985 and 1995/96), we can see that sugarcane farms tend to be much larger than those dedicated to any other crops, and that they have been even increasing lately. Unfortunately the lack of the census which was due for 2005 does not enable us to present more recent data. In 1985, for the country as a whole (Table XI), cane farms were only smaller than those of other activities at the strata of 10 to 100 hectares and of thousand hectares and more; ten years later, this situation only prevailed at the stratum of 100 to 1000 hectares. With regard to Pernambuco (Table XII), farms dedicated to other cultures were only larger 2 PR dobrará produção de etanol até 2008, Gazeta Mercantil, January 11, 2006, p. B 12. 2

3 3 than cane farms at the stratum of 10 to 100 hectares both in 1985 and in For Alagoas (Table XIII) cane farms were smaller than others at the stratum of more than thousand hectares in 1985 and at that of 10 to 100 hectares in In São Paulo (Table XIV) such discrepancies did not exist: both in 1985 and in 1995, cane farms were always larger than those of other activities (including pastures for cattle raising and reforestation plots). And in the case of Paraná (Table XV), we prefer not to comment the data of 1995 due to inconsistencies that we encountered at their transcription from that state s census; but in 1985 cane farms were only smaller than those of other activities at the stratum of thousand hectares and more. By taking the general averages of all strata, we can see that cane farms are always larger than the other, sometimes much larger, and that this difference has tended to increase through time. Thus, we may perceive on Table XI that, for the country as a whole, sugarcane farms were 38.8 per cent larger than those for other purposes (89.1 versus 64.4 hectares). In that year a little more than 85 thousand cane farms occupied a total area of almost 7.6 million hectares. Ten years later the number of those unite fell to less than 80 thousand but their total area grew more than five times, increasing very substantially the difference between their average size (of almost 500 hectares) vis-à-vis the average size of farms for other activities (72.5 hectares). In Pernambuco (Table XII) this difference was already greater in 1985, with cane farms being more than four times larger than those for other activities (68.3 versus 16.9 hectares); during the subsequent decade it increased to almost six times (109.6 versus 19.5 hectares), while the number of units decreased substantially but their total area remained almost the same (decreasing from 870 thousand hectares to 859 thousand). In Alagoas (Table XIII) differences were even greater: almost eleven times (121.1 versus 11.1 hectares) and increasing even further to almost twelve (154.3 versus 13.3 hectares), with another substantial reduction of the number of farms (from a little less than 7.1 thousand units to 4.6 thousand) and a less than proportional reduction in their total areas (from thousand hectares to around 705 thousand). In São Paulo (Table XIV), differences were smaller, amounting to less than five times in 1985 (231.7 hectares versus 65.2) but there also increasing somewhat up to almost 4.2 times (289.9 versus 69.8 hectares). And they were equally smaller in Paraná (less than four times in 1985, according to Table XV). A further aspect which deserves our attention resides in the huge territorial extension of the areas occupied by the largest sugar farms, those of the stratum of thousand hectares and more. For the country as a whole (Table XI) it amounted to an average size of more than 2.3 thousand hectares in 1985 and thence increasing to 3.4 thousand in These averages were almost the same in São Paulo (Table XIV) in both of those years, increasing in that state from approximately 2.3 thousand hectares to around 3.3 thousand. In the northeastern state of Pernambuco (Table XII) and Alagoas (Table XIV) the average sizes of those latifundia were smaller and increasing less intensely than in São Paulo and in the country as a whole. These features help to explain the current migration of those two states sugar mill owners (usineiros) to the southeast and the center west of the country, where they are either buying up existing mills and distilleries, together with their respective cane fields, or establishing new ones in up to now unexplored areas on a larger scale. In this however they have to face the increasing competition of Paulista sugar mill and/or ethanol distillery owners, who also have been expanding outward the borders of their state 3. 3 For a historical account on the evolution of these entrepreneurs see P.Ramos & T.Szmrecsányi, Evolução Histórica dos Grupos Empresariais da Agroindústria Canavieira Paulista, História Econômica & História de Empresas, V.1(2002), pp

4 4 The other issue, related to the employment opportunities for non-specialized agricultural labour, is a bit trickier and more controversial. According to the ideological defenders of the Brazilian sugar and ethanol industry, one of its merits resides precisely in the numerous employment opportunities that it provides with relatively high wages for unskilled and otherwise unemployed labour. Although this has been historically the case in some instances of the southeastern and southern parts of the country, more specifically in the states of São Paulo and Paraná (elsewhere and particularly in the Northeast, wages due to the abundance of redundant land-less labour have remained extremely low), the argument nowadays needs to be strongly qualified. On the one hand because that situation only continues to exist at harvesting times (four to five months a year) if and where the involved operations have not been entirely mechanized, like in many areas of São Paulo. And on the other, since whenever manual cropping still prevails it only does give origin to seasonal employment of the labour force, whose wages divided by the twelve months of the year instead of only those which are effectively worked result in an amount that barely corresponds to national legal minimum wages. At the same time, manual harvesting of cane, usually paid according to the workers daily production, continues to be an extremely penible job, specially for the women and children still frequently employed in it. And it provides only seasonal employment because most other operations of cane cultivation have already been mechanized and substituted by the use of chemicals (such as weed killers). Its persistence trough time is due to the cheapness of labour, to the high cost of harvesting machines (which cannot yet operate on any terrain), and to the lack of enforcement of environmental legislation forbidding the burning of cane during the harvests seasons, yearly undertaken by planters in order to increase the productivity of its manual (and sometimes even of its mechanical) cutting. Mechanical harvesting of raw or unburnt cane (cana crua) is of course much friendlier both to the environment and to the labour force, but has the disadvantage of not providing any agricultural employment opportunities for nonspecialized labourers, only being advantageous for specialized manpower (such as the machinery operators and mechanics) who are kept full time employed and relatively well paid. All this having been said, it still remains true that, in statistical terms, sugarcane cultivation and harvesting continue to be major employers of agricultural labour, although on a much smaller scale than in the recent past. For such reasons and in order to clarify our own argument, it may be useful, before proceeding at the presentation and analysis of the available data, briefly to describe what they mean and how they have been arrived at. The concept that we are going to use here is that of yearly men equivalent per hectare of harvested areas (equivalentes homens-ano, or EHA), developed by Otávio Valentim Balsadi and his associates. 4 4 The paragraph which follows is based upon two published works, a collection of statistical bulletins, and one unpublished report, all listed below. They were obtained through personal contacts with their main author, to whom we are herewith expressing our gratitude. Cf. O.V. Balsadi & Dalcio Caron, Tecnologia e Trabalho Rural no Estado de São Paulo: Algumas Evidências a Partir dos Coeficientes Técnicos de Absorção de Mão de Obra, Informações Econômicas, 24(11), Nov. 1994, pp.l9-28; O.V. Balsadi & Maria Rosa Borin, Força de Trabalho na na agricultura Paulista (São Paulo: Fundação SEAD$,1996); Sensor Rura1 SEADE nr.1 to 18 (Sep/Dec.l996-May/Aug.2002); O.V. Balsadi & M.R. Borin, Evolução da a de Força de Trabalho Agrícola no Brasil e Grandes Regiões no Período , unpublished report with eight pages (Brasília, Aug. 2005) 4

5 5 According to their methodology, any crop s monthly requirements of agricultural manpower (both specialized and non specialized) can be estimated through a formula d = a x b x c in which d (the demand for labour) is equal to the product of a (the manpower requirements of the agricultural labour process) by b (the monthly schedule of these processes) and by c (the harvested area of the culture in question). These requirements are usually defined in terms of daily persons (homens dia, or HD), a unit which theoretically corresponds to the labour force expended by an adult wage worker during an eight-hours working journey, and which eventually may be translated into the yearly men equivalent per hectare of harvested. areas mentioned above, by taking into account the number of days effectively worked by a labourer within a year. As a first general approximation, each yearly man equivalent (EHA) was taken to be equal to 250 daily persons (HD). Tables XVI to XX depict the evolution of non-specialized labour s agricultural employment opportunities during the 1990s. In three of them referring to Brazil as a whole (XVI), to São Paulo (XIX) and to Paraná (XX) we can see that employment opportunities in sugarcane cultivation and harvesting strongly declined in absolute terms despite the sizeable increases showed by its harvested areas (12.5 per cent in the country as a whole; 37,l per cent in the state of São Paulo; and per cent in that of Paraná). In the states of Pernambuco and Alagoas (Tables XVII and XVIII) sugarcane s harvested areas diminished significantly (almost 35 per cent in the former and a little less than twenty per cent in the latter), but their demand for labour declined even more dramatically (to one fifth in Pernambuco, and to one fourth in Alagoas). In 1990, sugarcane had been the main agricultural labour employing crop after coffee for the country as a whole; ten years later it descended to the fifth place among Brazil ten major crops, preceded by corn, coffee, beans and cassava. In Pernambuco, Alagoas and São Paulo it retained the first place, while in the state of Paraná it passed from the fifth to the fourth. At the beginning of that period, sugarcane s participation in the demand for non-specialized labour in agriculture was always greater than its participation rates in harvested areas. Except in Pernambuco and Alagoas, where the latter decreased, it has remained so, but by a much lesser amount (perhaps with the only exception of Paraná, whose relationship between the two rates seems to have remained constant). This means that sugarcane s expansion of employment opportunities was already then tending to become commensurate to that of its harvested areas; or, in other terms, that it tended ever more to require the work of a lot of people primarily due to the large areas that it occupies, and not because of any labour intensity per units of area. And it is important to remind that such areas are not only the harvested ones, registered by the annual statistical series, but the already commented total areas of cane farms, whose participation rates in the nation s total farm lands is for sure much larger than the sugar industry s agricultural employment in Brazil s or in any of its states total rural employment. These features, of course, will only be definitely proven through the forthcoming agricultural census. Even without it, however, we don t share the Brazilian elites enthusiasm for the recent (and current) expansion of the country s sugar industry. The benefits of that process will be extremely concentrated, whereas its costs are already impinging upon the entire economy and society. 5

6 6 TABLES Table I: Sugarcane among the Major Crops of Brazil s Agriculture (HA = Harvested in Thousands Hectares) Ranking CROPS HA % HA % HA % HA % HA % Soya Beans ,4 22,1% ,3 25,2% ,0 25,2% ,8 30,3% ,0 40,4% 2º 1º Corn ,3 25,7% ,3 25,0% ,3 30,1% ,4 26,4% ,1 20,3% 1º 2º Sugarcane 3.912,0 8,5% 4.272,6 9,4% 4.559,1 9,8% 4.804,5 10,6% 5.874,5 10,4% 5º 3º Rice 4.754,7 10,4% 3.946,7 8,7% 4.373,5 9,4% 3.664,8 8,1% 3.921,0 6,9% 4º 4º Beans 5.315,9 11,6% 4.680,1 10,3% 5.006,4 10,8% 4.332,5 9,6% 3.781,3 6,7% 3º 5º Wheat 2.676,7 5,8% 2.681,0 5,9% 994,7 2,1% 1.138,7 2,5% 2.359,8 4,2% 6º 6º Coffee 2.533,8 5,5% 2.909,0 6,4% 1.870,0 4,0% 2.268,0 5,0% 2.318,0 4,1% 7º 7º Cassava 1.868,1 4,1% 1.937,6 4,2% 1.946,2 4,2% 1.708,9 3,8% 1.923,9 3,4% 9º 8º Cotton 2.252,9 4,9% 1.391,9 3,1% 1.103,5 2,4% 801,6 1,8% 1.254,8 2,2% 8º 9º Oranges 663,1 1,4% 913,0 2,0% 856,4 1,8% 856,4 1,9% 803,6 1,4% 10º 10º TOTAL ,9 100, ,4 100, ,2 100, ,6 100, ,1 100,0 Source: IBGE - Produção Agrícola Municipal; Levantamento Sistemático da Produção Agrícola (2005) Table II: Sugarcane among the Major Crops of Pernambuco s Agriculture (HA = Harvested in Thousands Hectares) Ranking CROPS HA % HA % HA % HA % HA % Sugarcane 413,4 34,8% 467,3 42,7% 417,8 33,6% 304,5 32,9% 367,0 35,9% 1º 1º Beans 270,5 22,8% 231,0 21,1% 346,3 27,9% 273,0 29,5% 290,9 28,4% 3º 2º Corn 301,5 25,4% 203,7 18,6% 317,3 25,6% 238,4 25,7% 245,2 24,0% 2º 3º Cassava 144,6 12,2% 119,6 10,9% 89,2 7,2% 40,6 4,4% 53,8 5,3% 4º 4º Bananas 20,8 1,8% 30,9 2,8% 34,8 2,8% 36,9 4,0% 35,7 3,5% 5º 5º Coconuts 12,3 1,0% 11,7 1,1% 12,1 1,0% 9,5 1,0% 15,2 1,5% 7º 6º Rice 5,8 0,5% 7,6 0,7% 5,1 0,4% 4,0 0,4% 9,5 0,9% 8º 7º Coffee 15,4 1,3% 14,5 1,3% 8,3 0,7% 5,7 0,6% 5,2 0,5% 6º 8º Cashew nuts - 0,0% 4,6 0,4% 7,5 0,6% 7,2 0,8% ND 10º 9º Mangoes 2,8 0,2% 2,5 0,2% 3,4 0,3% 6,4 0,7% ND 9º 10º TOTAL 1.187,1 100, ,4 100, ,8 100,0 926,2 100, ,4 100,0 Source: IBGE - Produção Agrícola Municipal; Levantamento Sistemático da Produção Agrícola (2005) Table III: Sugarcane among the Major Crops of the Agriculture of Alagoas (HA = Harvested in Thousands Hectares) Ranking CROPS HA % HA % HA % HA % HA % Sugarcane 496,7 56,9% 558,6 70,9% 449,7 57,1% 448,2 67,3% 415,0 59,7% 1º 1º Beans 123,1 14,1% 94,4 12,0% 148,1 18,8% 82,1 12,3% 94,0 13,5% 2º 2º Corn 105,9 12,1% 50,8 6,4% 96,0 12,2% 57,1 8,6% 77,0 11,1% 3º 3º Bananas 7,1 0,8% 5,5 0,7% 3,6 0,5% 4,1 0,6% 40,0 5,8% 8º 4º Cassava 16,1 1,8% 20,0 2,5% 35,2 4,5% 25,1 3,8% 21,0 3,0% 7º 5º Tobacco 31,6 3,6% 26,6 3,4% 23,7 3,0% 17,7 2,7% 17,0 2,4% 5º 6º Coconuts 16,9 1,9% 15,8 2,0% 13,0 1,7% 15,1 2,3% 13,5 1,9% 6º 7º Cotton 68,5 7,8% 8,0 1,0% 8,9 1,1% 6,2 0,9% 10,5 1,5% 4º 8º Oranges 0,7 0,1% 0,5 0,1% 0,8 0,1% 3,8 0,6% 4,1 0,6% 10º 9º Rice 6,4 0,7% 7,7 1,0% 9,2 1,2% 6,4 1,0% 3,2 0,5% 9º 10º TOTAL 872,9 100,0 787,9 100,0 788,3 100,0 665,8 100,0 695,3 100,0 Source: IBGE - Produção Agrícola Municipal; Levantamento Sistemático da Produção Agrícola (2005) 6

7 7 Table IV: Sugarcane among the Major Crops of São Paulo s Agriculture (HA = Harvested in Thousands Hectares) Ranking CROPS HA % HA % HA % HA % HA % Sugarcane 1.666,2 28,6% 1.812,0 31,3% 2.258,9 41,6% 2.484,8 46,2% 3.141,8 49,7% 1º 1º Corn 1.146,8 19,7% 1.151,1 19,9% 1.243,3 22,9% 1.084,4 20,2% 1.074,5 17,0% 2º 2º Soya Beans 498,6 8,6% 561,2 9,7% 530,0 9,8% 535,0 10,0% 781,2 12,3% 5º 3º Oranges 503,7 8,7% 722,9 12,5% 620,8 11,4% 609,5 11,3% 574,5 9,1% 4º 4º Coffee 780,0 13,4% 567,0 9,8% 241,4 4,4% 211,6 3,9% 221,7 3,5% 3º 5º Beans 480,5 8,3% 367,7 6,3% 229,8 4,2% 212,8 4,0% 165,3 2,6% 6º 6º Sorghum 40,5 0,7% 45,7 0,8% 27,5 0,5% 72,7 1,4% 111,7 1,8% 10º 7º Cotton 386,2 6,6% 300,8 5,2% 179,7 3,3% 65,8 1,2% 108,3 1,7% 7º 8º Peanut 160,9 2,8% 68,5 1,2% 79,1 1,5% 85,1 1,6% 89,6 1,4% 8º 9º Wheat 154,9 2,7% 200,0 3,5% 23,8 0,4% 14,0 0,3% 57,0 0,9% 9º 10º TOTAL 5.818,2 100, ,9 100, ,2 100, ,5 100, ,6 100,0 Source: IBGE - Produção Agrícola Municipal; Levantamento Sistemático da Produção Agrícola (2005) Table V: Sugarcane among the Major Crops of Paraná s Agriculture (HA = Harvested in Thousands Hectares) Ranking CROPS HA % HA % HA % HA % HA % Soya Beans 2.196,4 27,5% 2.267,6 30,4% 2.206,2 31,6% 2.858,0 40,7% 4.130,6 46,2% 2º 1º Corn 2.332,8 29,2% 2.079,8 27,9% 2.699,3 38,7% 2.229,9 31,8% 1.960,7 21,9% 1º 2º Wheat 1.301,9 16,3% 1.197,1 16,1% 636,5 9,1% 489,9 7,0% 1.277,5 14,3% 3º 3º Beans 723,8 9,1% 550,6 7,4% 513,9 7,4% 540,9 7,7% 432,2 4,8% 4º 4º Sugarcane 140,9 1,8% 159,4 2,1% 255,6 3,7% 327,2 4,7% 407,0 4,5% 8º 5º Oats 25,5 0,3% 31,5 0,4% 99,1 1,4% 112,4 1,6% 306,4 3,4% 10º 6º Cassava 85,8 1,1% 101,9 1,4% 144,4 2,1% 182,9 2,6% 205,7 2,3% 9º 7º Coffee 431,0 5,4% 426,4 5,7% 36,7 0,5% 142,1 2,0% 107,9 1,2% 6º 8º Rice 200,0 2,5% 151,0 2,0% 99,7 1,4% 79,8 1,1% 60,6 0,7% 7º 9º Cotton 540,0 6,8% 490,0 6,6% 282,8 4,1% 54,1 0,8% 56,9 0,6% 5º 10º TOTAL 7.978,0 100,0% 7.455,4 100,0% 6.974,2 100,0% 7.017,2 100, ,5 100,0 Source: IBGE - Produção Agrícola Municipal; Levantamento Sistemático da Produção Agrícola (2005) 7

8 8 Table VI: Brazil s Sugarcane Producing States (Production in Thousand Tons) Brasil e UF 1985 % 1990 % 1995 % 2000 % 2005 % Ranking Brasil % % % % % São Paulo ,9% ,5% ,6% ,0% ,8% 1 1 Paraná ,2% ,5% ,7% ,1% ,4% 7 2 Minas Gerais ,5% ,7% ,5% ,7% ,0% 4 3 Alagoas ,1% ,0% ,1% ,5% ,5% 2 4 Pernambuco ,4% ,7% ,8% ,7% ,1% 3 5 Goiás ,4% ,6% ,5% ,1% ,7% 8 6 Mato Grosso ,7% ,2% ,3% ,6% ,1% 14 7 M.G. do Sul ,3% ,6% ,6% ,8% ,3% 10 8 Rio de Janeiro ,4% ,1% ,4% ,2% ,8% 5 9 Bahia ,4% ,3% ,3% ,5% ,3% 9 10 Paraíba ,3% ,2% ,1% ,2% ,2% 6 11 Espírito Santo ,1% ,6% ,7% ,7% ,0% R.G. do Norte ,0% ,9% ,8% ,7% ,8% Maranhão ,4% ,8% ,4% ,3% ,5% Ceará ,8% ,0% ,7% ,5% ,4% Sergipe ,6% ,8% ,4% ,4% ,4% R.G. do Sul 971 0,4% 915 0,3% 831 0,3% 959 0,3% 906 0,2% Piauí 552 0,2% ,6% 904 0,3% 396 0,1% 648 0,2% Santa Catarina ,4% 979 0,4% 427 0,1% 509 0,2% 602 0,1% Pará 258 0,1% 390 0,1% 425 0,1% 520 0,2% 505 0,1% Amazonas 59 0,0% 115 0,0% 53 0,0% 218 0,1% 235 0,1% Tocantins - 0,0% 238 0,1% 213 0,1% 150 0,0% 162 0,0% Rondônia 76 0,0% 23 0,0% 17 0,0% 19 0,0% - 0,0% Acre 9 0,0% 17 0,0% 17 0,0% 7 0,0% - 0,0% D.Federal 5 0,0% - 0,0% 19 0,0% 11 0,0% - 0,0% Amapá 1 0,0% - 0,0% - 0,0% 1 0,0% - 0,0% Roraima 2 0,0% - 0,0% - 0,0% 1 0,0% - 0,0% Source: IBGE - Produção Agrícola Municipal; Levantamento Sistemático da Produção Agrícola (2005) 8

9 9 Table VII: Spatial Distribution of Brazil s Sugarcane Production (Thousand Tons and Per Cent Rates) Ano Pernambuco Alagoas São Paulo Paraná Others Brasil Tons (1.000) % Tons (1.000) % Tons (1.000) % Tons (1.000) % Tons (1.000) % Tons (1.000) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Source: IBGE - Produção Agrícola Municipal; Levantamento Sistemático da Produção Agrícola (2005) Table VIII: Spatial Distribution of Brazil s Sugarcane Harvested (Thousand Hectares and Per Cent Rates) Ano Pernambuco Alagoas São Paulo Paraná Others Brasil Ha (1.000) % Ha (1.000) % Ha (1.000) % Ha (1.000) % Ha (1.000) % Ha (1.000) ,4 11% 496,7 13% 1.666,2 43% 140,9 4% 1195,0 31% 3.912, ,3 11% 558,6 13% 1.812,0 42% 159,4 4% 1275,4 30% 4.272, ,8 9% 449,7 10% 2.258,9 50% 255,6 6% 1177,1 26% 4.559, ,5 6% 448,2 9% 2.484,8 52% 327,2 7% 1239,9 26% 4.804, ,0 6% 415,0 7% 3.141,8 53% 407,0 7% 1543,8 26% 5.874,5 Source: IBGE - Produção Agrícola Municipal; Levantamento Sistemático da Produção Agrícola (2005) Table IX: Spatial Distribution of Brazil s Sugarcane Yields (Tons per Hectares and Percentual Relation to National ) Ano Pernambuco Alagoas São Paulo Paraná Others Brasil Ton/Ha UF/BR Ton/Ha UF/BR Ton/Ha UF/BR Ton/Ha UF/BR Ton/Ha UF/BR Ton/Ha ,4 0,80 50,3 0,80 75,5 1,20 74,0 1,17 54,5 0,86 63, ,8 0,79 46,8 0,76 76,1 1,24 73,6 1,20 50,3 0,82 61, ,5 0,74 48,0 0,72 77,5 1,16 79,9 1,20 56,1 0,84 66, ,8 0,73 62,0 0,91 76,1 1,12 70,9 1,04 57,2 0,84 67, ,3 0,66 55,4 0,77 80,3 1,12 76,8 1,07 63,5 0,88 71,8 Source: IBGE - Produção Agrícola Municipal; Levantamento Sistemático da Produção Agrícola (2005) 9

10 10 Table X: Index Numbers of Brazil s Sugarcane Production (PR), Harvested (HA) and Yields (YI) Pernambuco Alagoas São Paulo Paraná Outros Brasil Ano PR HA YI PR HA YI PR HA YI PR HA YI PR HA YI PR HA YI Sources: Tables VII, VIII and IX 10

11 11 Table XI: Brazil s Sugarcane Farms Compared to Those Other Activities by Groups of Total Area Sizes. Categories and Size Variation 1995/1985 Groups (Ha) Total Number of Farms Total Number of Farms Total Number of Farms (1) TOTAIS Menos de 10 Ha , ,3 0,79 0,78 1,01 10 a menos de100 Ha , ,7 0,90 0,89 1, a menos de 1000 Ha , ,9 0,94 0,91 1, Ha e Mais , ,4 0,97 0,98 0,99 TOTAL (*) , ,1 0,94 0,84 1,13 (2) Sugacane (**)... Menos de 10 Ha , ,1 0,88 0,85 1,04 10 a menos de100 Ha , ,7 1,01 0,96 1, a menos de 1000 Ha , ,5 0,92 1,15 0, Ha e Mais , ,6 1,44 0,99 1,45 TOTAL , ,5 5,25 0,94 5,61 (3) Other Activities... Menos de 10 Ha , ,3 0,79 0,78 1,01 10 a menos de100 Ha , ,7 0,90 0,89 1, a menos de 1000 Ha , ,4 0,94 0,90 1, Ha e Mais , ,7 0,96 0,98 0,99 TOTAL , ,5 0,94 0,83 1,13 (1) Source: IBGE - Table 1 of the Censos Agropecuários e 1995/96 (*) Excluding those without area declaration: em 1985; em 1995 (2) Source: IBGE Censo Agropecuário (**) The data of 1985 were taken from Table 18 of that year s census. Due to the inexistence of this table in the 1995 census, the data of that year were estimated on the basis of its Table 53 (relative to harvested areas distribution per total area size groups), assuming that the relationships of theses two tables in 1985 could be considered constant technical coefficients of total per harvested areas, and of farms per informants, remembering that the former and not the latter are the basic information units of any agricultural census. (3) Source: Difference between (1) and (2) 11

12 12 Table XII: Pernambuco s Sugar Cane Farms Compared to Those of Other Activities by Groups of Total Area Sizes. Categories and Size Groups (Ha) Total Number of Farms Variation 1995/1985 Total Number Total Number of Farms of Farms (1) TOTAIS Menos de 10 Ha , ,8 0,74 0,69 1,07 10 a menos de100 Ha , ,1 0,85 0,85 1, a menos de 1000 Ha , ,2 0,82 0,82 1, Ha e Mais , ,1 0,93 0,93 0,99 TOTAL (*) , ,6 0,84 0,73 1,15 (2) Sugacane (**)... Menos de 10 Ha , ,0 0,64 0,59 1,08 10 a menos de100 Ha , ,7 0,54 0,62 0, a menos de 1000 Ha , ,9 0,72 0,69 1, Ha e Mais , ,0 1,31 0,96 1,37 TOTAL , ,6 0,99 0,62 1,60 (3) Other Activities... Menos de 10 Ha , ,8 0,74 0,69 1,08 10 a menos de100 Ha , ,5 0,87 0,87 1, a menos de 1000 Ha , ,3 0,84 0,84 1, Ha e Mais , ,1 0,86 0,93 0,93 TOTAL , ,5 0,84 0,73 1,15 (1) Source: IBGE - Table 1 of the Censos Agropecuários e 1995/96 (*) Excluding those without area declaration: 439 in 1985; 147 in 1995 (2) Source: IBGE Censo Agropecuário (**) The data of 1985 were taken from Table 18 of that year s census. Due to the inexistence of this table in the 1995 census, the data of that year were estimated on the basis of its Table 53 (relative to harvested areas distribution per total area size groups), assuming that the relationships of theses two tables in 1985 could be considered constant technical coefficients of total per harvested areas, and of farms per informants, remembering that the former and not the latter are the basic information units of any agricultural census. (3) Source: Difference between (1) and (2) 12

13 13 Table XIII: Sugar Farms of Alagoas Compared to Those of Other Activities by Groups of Total Area Sizes Categories and Size Variação 1995/1985 Groups (Ha) Total Number of Farms Total Number of Farms Total Number of Farms (1) TOTAIS Menos de 10 Ha , ,4 0,81 0,79 1,03 10 a menos de100 Ha , ,3 0,86 0,86 1, a menos de 1000 Ha , ,3 0,91 0,91 1, Ha e Mais , ,2 1,04 0,82 1,27 TOTAL (*) , ,6 0,91 0,81 1,12 (2) Sugarcane (**).. Menos de 10 Ha , ,6 0,54 0,64 0,84 10 a menos de100 Ha , ,8 0,46 0,60 0, a menos de 1000 Ha , ,0 0,68 0,73 0, Ha e Mais , ,1 1,11 0,81 1,37 TOTAL , ,3 0,82 0,64 1,27 (3) Other Activities... Menos de 10 Ha , ,4 0,82 0,80 1,04 10 a menos de100 Ha , ,6 0,94 0,91 1, a menos de 1000 Ha , ,6 1,10 1,03 1, Ha e Mais , ,5 0,92 0,84 1,10 TOTAL , ,3 0,98 0,81 1,20 (1) Source: IBGE - Table 1 of the Censos Agropecuários e 1995/96 (*) Excluding those without area declaration: 3 in 1985; 26 in 1995 (2) Source: IBGE Censo Agropecuário (**) The data of 1985 were taken from Table 18 of that year s census. Due to the inexistence of this table in the 1995 census, the data of that year were estimated on the basis of its Table 53 (relative to harvested areas distribution per total area size groups), assuming that the relationships of theses two tables in 1985 could be considered constant technical coefficients of total per harvested areas, and of farms per informants, remembering that the former and not the latter are the basic information units of any agricultural census. (3) Source: Difference between (1) and (2) 13

14 14 Table XIV: São Paulo s Sugarcane Farms Compared to Those of Other Activities by Groups of Total Area Sizes. Categories and Size Variação 1995/1985 Groups (Ha) Total Number of Farms Total Number of Farms Total Number of Farms (1) TOTAIS Menos de 10 Ha , ,7 0,64 0,65 0,98 10 a menos de100 Ha , ,5 0,84 0,83 1, a menos de 1000 Ha , ,8 0,88 0,88 1, Ha e Mais , ,0 0,84 0,81 1,05 TOTAL (*) , ,8 0,86 0,77 1,11 (2) Sugarcane (**)... Menos de 10 Ha , ,6 2,09 1,38 1,51 10 a menos de100 Ha , ,8 1,46 1,56 0, a menos de 1000 Ha , ,8 1,06 1,19 0, Ha e Mais , ,2 1,39 0,97 1,44 TOTAL , ,9 1,76 1,40 1,25 (3) Other Activities... Menos de 10 Ha , ,6 0,61 0,64 0,96 10 a menos de100 Ha , ,3 0,81 0,80 1, a menos de 1000 Ha , ,5 0,86 0,85 1, Ha e Mais , ,8 0,69 0,76 0,91 TOTAL , ,8 0,80 0,75 1,07 (1) Source: IBGE - Table 1 of the Censos Agropecuários e 1995/96 (*) Excluding those without area declaration: 212 in 1985; 256 in 1995 (2) Source: IBGE Censo Agropecuário (**) The data of 1985 were taken from Table 18 of that year s census. Due to the inexistence of this table in the 1995 census, the data of that year were estimated on the basis of its Table 53 (relative to harvested areas distribution per total area size groups), assuming that the relationships of theses two tables in 1985 could be considered constant technical coefficients of total per harvested areas, and of farms per informants, remembering that the former and not the latter are the basic information units of any agricultural census. (3) Source: Difference between (1) and (2) 14

15 15 Table XV: Paraná s Sugarcane Farms Compared to Those of Other Activities by Groups of Total Area Sizes. Categories and Size Variação 1995/1985 Groups (Ha) Total Number of Farms Total Number of Farms Total Number of Farms (1) TOTAIS Menos de 10 Ha , ,1 0,70 0,68 1,04 10 a menos de100 Ha , ,7 0,93 0,89 1, a menos de 1000 Ha , ,6 1,09 1,09 1, Ha e Mais , ,5 0,86 0,94 0,92 TOTAL (*) , ,1 0,95 0,79 1,20 (2) Sugarcane (**)... Menos de 10 Ha , ,5 1,54 0,83 1,86 10 a menos de100 Ha , ,5 1,21 0,86 1, a menos de 1000 Ha , ,1 1,53 1,07 1, Ha e Mais , ,2 2,62 0,87 3,00 TOTAL , ,9 2,16 0,86 2,50 (3) Other Activities... Menos de 10 Ha , ,1 0,70 0,67 1,04 10 a menos de100 Ha , ,6 0,92 0,89 1, a menos de 1000 Ha , ,7 1,08 1,09 0, Ha e Mais , ,0 0,81 0,94 0,87 TOTAL , ,0 0,94 0,79 1,19 (1) Source: IBGE - Table 1 of the Censos Agropecuários e 1995/96 (*) Excluding those without area declaration: 162 in 1985; 68 in 1995 (2) Source: IBGE Censo Agropecuário (**) The data of 1985 were taken from Table 18 of that year s census. Due to the inexistence of this table in the 1995 census, the data of that year were estimated on the basis of its Table 53 (relative to harvested areas distribution per total area size groups), assuming that the relationships of theses two tables in 1985 could be considered constant technical coefficients of total per harvested areas, and of farms per informants, remembering that the former and not the latter are the basic information units of any agricultural census. (3) Source: Difference between (1) and (2) 15

16 16 Table XVI: Brazil's Main Crops Agriculture Employment Opportunities For Non-Specialized Labour Agricultural Products Harvested (*) EHA For Labour Harvested (*) EHA For Labour Harvested (*) EHA For Labour Soya Beans , , , Corn , , , Beans , , , Sugarcane , , , Rice , , , Coffee , , , Wheat , , , Cassava , , , Cotton , , , Oranges 913 0, , , Total (**) , , , Sources: Table I and data provided By Otávio Balsadi and Associates Notes: (*) In Thousand Hectares (**) Sums of the ten main crops, with total EHA being an average for all of them 16

17 17 Table XVII: Pernambuco's Main Crops Agriculture Employment Opportunities For Non-Specialized Labour Agricultural Products Harvested (*) EHA (**) For Labour Harvested (*) EHA (**) For Labour Harvested (*) EHA (**) For Labour Sugarcane 467,3 0, ,8 0, ,5 0, Beans 231,0 0, ,3 0, ,0 0, Corn 203,7 0, ,3 0, ,4 0, Cassava 119,6 0, ,2 0, ,6 0, Bananas 30,9 0, ,8 0, ,9 0, Coconuts 11,7 0, ,1 0, ,5 0, Rice 7,6 0, ,1 0, ,0 0, Mangoes (2,5) ND (3,4) ND (6,4) ND ---- Cashew Fruits 4,6 0, ,5 0, ,2 0, Coffee 14,5 0, ,3 0, ,7 0, Total (***) 1.090,9 0, ,4 0, ,8 0, Sources: Table II and data provided By Otávio Balsadi and Associates Notes: (*) In Thousand Hectares (**) Coefficients of Brazil s Northeastern Region (***) Total and average for only nine product 17

18 18 Table XVIII: Main Crops of Alagoas Agricultural Employment Opportunities For Non-Specialized Labour Agricultural Products Harvested (*) EHA (**) For Labour Harvested EHA (**) For Labour Harvested EHA (**) For Labour Sugarcane 558,6 0, ,7 0, ,1 0, Beans 94,4 0, ,1 0, ,1 0, Corn 50,8 0, ,0 0, ,1 0, Tobacco 26,6 0, ,7 0, ,7 0, Cassava 20,0 0, ,2 0, ,1 0, Coconuts 15,8 0, ,0 0, ,1 0, Cotton 8,0 0, ,9 0, ,2 0, Rice 7,7 0, ,2 0, ,4 0, Bananas 5,5 0, ,6 0, ,1 0, Oranges 0,5 0, ,8 0, ,8 0, Total (***) 787,9 0, ,2 0, ,7 0, Sources: Table III and data provided By Otávio Balsadi and Associates Notes: (*) In Thousand Hectares (**) Coefficients of Brazil s Northeastern Region (***) Sums of the ten main crops, with total EHA being an average for all of them 18

19 19 Table XIX: São Paulo s Main Crops Agriculture Employment Opportunities For Non-Specialized Labour Agricultural Products Harves Harves ted ted Deman d For Labour Harvested (*) EHA (**) For Labour (*) EHA (**) For Labour (*) EHA (**) Sugarcane 1.812,0 0, ,9 0, ,8 0, Corn 1.151,1 0, ,3 0, ,4 0, Soya Beans 561,2 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, Oranges 722,9 0, ,8 0, ,5 0, Coffee 567,0 0, ,4 0, ,6 0, Beans 367,6 0, ,8 0, ,8 0, Sorghum 45,7 0, ,5 0, ,7 0, Cotton 300,8 0, ,6 0, ,8 0, Peanuts 58,5 0, ,1 0, ,1 0, Wheat 200,0 0, ,8 0, ,0 0, Total (***) 5.786,8 0, ,2 0, ,7 0, Sources: Table IV data provided By Otávio Balsadi and Associates Notes: (*) In Thousand Hectares (**) Coefficients of basis of data collected by the State s Department of Agriculture (***) Sums of the ten main crops, with total EHA being an average for all of them 19

20 20 Table XX: Main Crops of Paraná Agricultural Employment Opportunities For Non-Specialized Labour Agricultural Products Harvested EHA For Harvested EHA For Harvested EHA For (*) (**) Labour (*) (**) Labour (*) (**) Labour Soya Beans 2.257,6 0, ,2 0, ,0 0, Corn 2.079,8 0, ,3 0, ,0 0, Wheat 1.197,1 0, ,5 0, ,9 0, Beans 550,6 0, ,9 0, ,9 0, Cotton 490,0 0, ,8 0, ,1 0, Coffee 426,4 0, ,7 0, ,1 0, Sugarcane 159,4 0, ,6 0, ,2 0, Rice 151,0 0, ,7 0, ,8 0, Cassava 101,9 0, ,4 0, ,9 0, Oats (31,5) (ND) ---- (99,1) (ND) ---- (112,4) (ND) ---- Total (***) 7.413,8 0, ,1 0, ,9 0, Sources: Table V and data provided By Otávio Balsadi and Associates Notes: (*) In Thousand Hectares (**) Coefficients of Brazil s Southern Region (***) Totals and average for only nine product 20