The Agrarian Consequences of Brazil s Recent Sugar Industry Expansion 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, 2006. Not to be quoted or reproduced. 1

2 increased from 1.666 thousand hectares to 2.259 thousand ten years later, and then again from 2.485 thousand to 3.142 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 2000. 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 than cane farms at the stratum of 10 to 100 hectares both in 1985 and in 1995. 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 1995. 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 859.3 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 1995. 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.85-115. 3

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 2000-2005, unpublished report with eight pages (Brasília, Aug. 2005) 4

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 105.3 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 TABLES Table I: Sugarcane among the Major Crops of Brazil s Agriculture (HA = Harvested in Thousands Hectares) 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Ranking CROPS HA % HA % HA % HA % HA % 1985 2005 Soya Beans 10.153,4 22,1% 11.487,3 25,2% 11.675,0 25,2% 13.656,8 30,3% 22.917,0 40,4% 2º 1º Corn 11.798,3 25,7% 11.394,3 25,0% 13.946,3 30,1% 11.890,4 26,4% 11.525,1 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 45.928,9 100,0 45.613,4 100,0 46.331,2 100,0 45.122,6 100,0 56.679,1 100,0 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) 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Ranking CROPS HA % HA % HA % HA % HA % 1985 2005 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 1.187,1 100,0 1.093,4 100,0 1.241,8 100,0 926,2 100,0 1.022,4 100,0 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) 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Ranking CROPS HA % HA % HA % HA % HA % 1985 2005 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 Table IV: Sugarcane among the Major Crops of São Paulo s Agriculture (HA = Harvested in Thousands Hectares) 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Ranking CROPS HA % HA % HA % HA % HA % 1985 2005 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 5.818,2 100,0 5.796,9 100,0 5.434,2 100,0 5.375,5 100,0 6.325,6 100,0 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) 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Ranking CROPS HA % HA % HA % HA % HA % 1985 2005 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% 7.017,2 100,0 8.945,5 100,0 Source: IBGE - Produção Agrícola Municipal; Levantamento Sistemático da Produção Agrícola (2005) 7

8 Table VI: Brazil s Sugarcane Producing States (Production in Thousand Tons) Brasil e UF 1985 % 1990 % 1995 % 2000 % 2005 % Ranking Brasil 247.199 100% 262.674 100% 303.699 100% 326.121 100% 421.760 100% 1985 2005 São Paulo 125.872 50,9% 137.835 52,5% 174.960 57,6% 189.040 58,0% 252.147 59,8% 1 1 Paraná 10.424 4,2% 11.736 4,5% 20.430 6,7% 23.192 7,1% 31.238 7,4% 7 2 Minas Gerais 16.172 6,5% 17.533 6,7% 16.726 5,5% 18.706 5,7% 25.381 6,0% 4 3 Alagoas 25.004 10,1% 26.151 10,0% 21.573 7,1% 27.798 8,5% 23.000 5,5% 2 4 Pernambuco 20.826 8,4% 22.818 8,7% 20.665 6,8% 15.167 4,7% 17.367 4,1% 3 5 Goiás 6.025 2,4% 6.896 2,6% 7.690 2,5% 10.163 3,1% 15.640 3,7% 8 6 Mato Grosso 1.740 0,7% 3.037 1,2% 6.945 2,3% 8.470 2,6% 13.147 3,1% 14 7 M.G. do Sul 3.171 1,3% 4.193 1,6% 4.922 1,6% 5.837 1,8% 9.535 2,3% 10 8 Rio de Janeiro 10.947 4,4% 5.575 2,1% 7.295 2,4% 7.086 2,2% 7.572 1,8% 5 9 Bahia 3.443 1,4% 3.435 1,3% 4.021 1,3% 4.879 1,5% 5.637 1,3% 9 10 Paraíba 10.646 4,3% 8.283 3,2% 6.522 2,1% 3.987 1,2% 4.976 1,2% 6 11 Espírito Santo 2.740 1,1% 1.501 0,6% 2.070 0,7% 2.376 0,7% 4.243 1,0% 11 12 R.G. do Norte 2.575 1,0% 2.492 0,9% 2.336 0,8% 2.376 0,7% 3.286 0,8% 12 13 Maranhão 1.109 0,4% 2.042 0,8% 1.366 0,4% 1.110 0,3% 1.968 0,5% 16 14 Ceará 1.887 0,8% 2.724 1,0% 2.029 0,7% 1.792 0,5% 1.787 0,4% 13 15 Sergipe 1.602 0,6% 2.182 0,8% 1.242 0,4% 1.353 0,4% 1.777 0,4% 15 16 R.G. do Sul 971 0,4% 915 0,3% 831 0,3% 959 0,3% 906 0,2% 18 17 Piauí 552 0,2% 1.562 0,6% 904 0,3% 396 0,1% 648 0,2% 19 18 Santa Catarina 1.082 0,4% 979 0,4% 427 0,1% 509 0,2% 602 0,1% 17 19 Pará 258 0,1% 390 0,1% 425 0,1% 520 0,2% 505 0,1% 20 20 Amazonas 59 0,0% 115 0,0% 53 0,0% 218 0,1% 235 0,1% 22 21 Tocantins - 0,0% 238 0,1% 213 0,1% 150 0,0% 162 0,0% 27 22 Rondônia 76 0,0% 23 0,0% 17 0,0% 19 0,0% - 0,0% 21 23 Acre 9 0,0% 17 0,0% 17 0,0% 7 0,0% - 0,0% 23 24 D.Federal 5 0,0% - 0,0% 19 0,0% 11 0,0% - 0,0% 24 25 Amapá 1 0,0% - 0,0% - 0,0% 1 0,0% - 0,0% 26 26 Roraima 2 0,0% - 0,0% - 0,0% 1 0,0% - 0,0% 25 27 Source: IBGE - Produção Agrícola Municipal; Levantamento Sistemático da Produção Agrícola (2005) 8

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) 1985 20.826 8% 25.004 10% 125.872 51% 10.424 4% 65.073 26% 247.199 1990 22.818 9% 26.151 10% 137.835 52% 11.736 4% 64.134 24% 262.674 1995 20.665 7% 21.573 7% 174.960 58% 20.430 7% 66.072 22% 303.699 2000 15.167 5% 27.798 9% 189.040 58% 23.192 7% 70.924 22% 326.121 2005 17.367 4% 23.000 5% 252.147 60% 31.238 7% 98.008 23% 421.760 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) 1985 413,4 11% 496,7 13% 1.666,2 43% 140,9 4% 1195,0 31% 3.912,0 1990 467,3 11% 558,6 13% 1.812,0 42% 159,4 4% 1275,4 30% 4.272,6 1995 417,8 9% 449,7 10% 2.258,9 50% 255,6 6% 1177,1 26% 4.559,1 2000 304,5 6% 448,2 9% 2.484,8 52% 327,2 7% 1239,9 26% 4.804,5 2005 367,0 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 1985 50,4 0,80 50,3 0,80 75,5 1,20 74,0 1,17 54,5 0,86 63,2 1990 48,8 0,79 46,8 0,76 76,1 1,24 73,6 1,20 50,3 0,82 61,5 1995 49,5 0,74 48,0 0,72 77,5 1,16 79,9 1,20 56,1 0,84 66,6 2000 49,8 0,73 62,0 0,91 76,1 1,12 70,9 1,04 57,2 0,84 67,9 2005 47,3 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 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 1985 105 104 101 117 109 108 107 105 102 124 116 107 117 109 108 111 107 104 1990 115 117 98 123 122 101 118 115 103 139 131 106 116 116 100 118 117 101 1995 104 105 99 101 98 103 149 143 104 242 210 115 119 107 111 137 125 110 2000 76 76 100 131 98 133 161 157 103 275 269 102 128 113 113 147 131 112 2005 87 92 95 108 91 119 215 199 108 371 334 111 177 141 126 190 161 118 Sources: Tables VII, VIII and IX 10

11 Table XI: Brazil s Sugarcane Farms Compared to Those Other Activities by Groups of Total Area Sizes. Categories and Size 1985 1995 Variation 1995/1985 Groups (Ha) Total Number of Farms Total Number of Farms Total Number of Farms (1) TOTAIS Menos de 10 Ha... 9.986.588 3.064.822 3,3 7.882.194 2.402.374 3,3 0,79 0,78 1,01 10 a menos de100 Ha... 69.565.121 2.160.340 32,2 62.693.585 1.916.487 32,7 0,90 0,89 1,02 100 a menos de 1000 Ha. 131.432.623 517.431 254,0 123.541.517 469.964 262,9 0,94 0,91 1,03 1000 Ha e Mais... 163.940.415 50.411 3.252,1 159.493.949 49.358 3.231,4 0,97 0,98 0,99 TOTAL (*)... 374.924.747 5.793.004 64,7 353.611.245 4.838.183 73,1 0,94 0,84 1,13 (2) Sugacane (**)... Menos de 10 Ha... 144.871 36.980 3,9 127.784 31.479 4,1 0,88 0,85 1,04 10 a menos de100 Ha... 1.131.345 35.521 31,9 1.147.326 34.024 33,7 1,01 0,96 1,06 100 a menos de 1000 Ha. 3.450.114 11.333 304,4 3.161.056 12.982 243,5 0,92 1,15 0,80 1000 Ha e Mais... 2.849.631 1.213 2.349,2 4.112.245 1.204 3.416,6 1,44 0,99 1,45 TOTAL... 7.575.961 85.047 89,1 39.805.931 79.693 499,5 5,25 0,94 5,61 (3) Other Activities... Menos de 10 Ha... 9.841.717 3.027.842 3,3 7.754.410 2.370.895 3,3 0,79 0,78 1,01 10 a menos de100 Ha... 68.433.776 2.124.819 32,2 61.546.259 1.882.463 32,7 0,90 0,89 1,02 100 a menos de 1000 Ha. 127.982.509 506.098 252,9 120.380.461 456.982 263,4 0,94 0,90 1,04 1000 Ha e Mais... 161.090.784 49.198 3.274,3 155.381.704 48.154 3.226,7 0,96 0,98 0,99 TOTAL... 367.348.786 5.707.957 64,4 345.062.834 4.758.495 72,5 0,94 0,83 1,13 (1) Source: IBGE - Table 1 of the Censos Agropecuários - 1985 e 1995/96 (*) Excluding those without area declaration: 8.805 em 1985; 21.682 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 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 1985 1995 Variation 1995/1985 Total Number Total Number of Farms of Farms (1) TOTAIS Menos de 10 Ha... 714.805 270.756 2,6 529.764 186.669 2,8 0,74 0,69 1,07 10 a menos de100 Ha... 2.103.664 72.581 29,0 1.795.139 61.672 29,1 0,85 0,85 1,00 100 a menos de 1000 Ha. 2.915.667 11.794 247,2 2.389.196 9.703 246,2 0,82 0,82 1,00 1000 Ha e Mais... 935.778 471 1.986,8 866.635 439 1.974,1 0,93 0,93 0,99 TOTAL (*)... 6.669.914 355.602 18,8 5.580.734 258.483 21,6 0,84 0,73 1,15 (2) Sugacane (**)... Menos de 10 Ha... 22.189 6.037 3,7 14.230 3.583 4,0 0,64 0,59 1,08 10 a menos de100 Ha... 123.091 4.989 24,7 66.935 3.081 21,7 0,54 0,62 0,88 100 a menos de 1000 Ha. 581.495 1.611 361,0 418.990 1.112 376,9 0,72 0,69 1,04 1000 Ha e Mais... 142.743 87 1.640,7 187.012 83 2.243,0 1,31 0,96 1,37 TOTAL... 869.518 12.724 68,3 858.744 7.832 109,6 0,99 0,62 1,60 (3) Other Activities... Menos de 10 Ha... 692.616 264.719 2,6 515.534 183.086 2,8 0,74 0,69 1,08 10 a menos de100 Ha... 1.980.573 67.592 29,3 1.728.204 58.591 29,5 0,87 0,87 1,01 100 a menos de 1000 Ha. 2.334.172 10.183 229,2 1.970.206 8.591 229,3 0,84 0,84 1,00 1000 Ha e Mais... 793.035 384 2.065,2 679.623 356 1.911,1 0,86 0,93 0,93 TOTAL... 5.800.396 342.878 16,9 4.893.568 250.624 19,5 0,84 0,73 1,15 (1) Source: IBGE - Table 1 of the Censos Agropecuários - 1985 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 Table XIII: Sugar Farms of Alagoas Compared to Those of Other Activities by Groups of Total Area Sizes Categories and Size 1985 1995 Variação 1995/1985 Groups (Ha) Total Number of Farms Total Number of Farms Total Number of Farms (1) TOTAIS Menos de 10 Ha... 270.333 117.068 2,3 220.023 92.736 2,4 0,81 0,79 1,03 10 a menos de100 Ha... 632.979 21.549 29,4 545.369 18.625 29,3 0,86 0,86 1,00 100 a menos de 1000 Ha. 1.063.007 3.829 277,6 963.371 3.487 276,3 0,91 0,91 1,00 1000 Ha e Mais... 397.445 225 1.766,4 413.698 185 2.236,2 1,04 0,82 1,27 TOTAL (*)... 2.363.764 142.671 16,6 2.142.461 115.033 18,6 0,91 0,81 1,12 (2) Sugarcane (**).. Menos de 10 Ha... 10.089 2.361 4,3 5.455 1.513 3,6 0,54 0,64 0,84 10 a menos de100 Ha... 105.583 3.058 34,5 48.949 1.829 26,8 0,46 0,60 0,78 100 a menos de 1000 Ha. 496.584 1.539 322,7 339.195 1.119 303,0 0,68 0,73 0,94 1000 Ha e Mais... 247.089 141 1.752,4 274.619 115 2.397,1 1,11 0,81 1,37 TOTAL... 859.345 7.099 121,1 704.971 4.569 154,3 0,82 0,64 1,27 (3) Other Activities... Menos de 10 Ha... 260.244 114.707 2,3 214.568 91.223 2,4 0,82 0,80 1,04 10 a menos de100 Ha... 527.396 18.491 28,5 496.420 16.796 29,6 0,94 0,91 1,04 100 a menos de 1000 Ha. 566.423 2.290 247,3 624.176 2.368 263,6 1,10 1,03 1,07 1000 Ha e Mais... 150.356 84 1.790,0 139.079 70 1.974,5 0,92 0,84 1,10 TOTAL... 1.504.419 135.572 11,1 1.474.243 110.458 13,3 0,98 0,81 1,20 (1) Source: IBGE - Table 1 of the Censos Agropecuários - 1985 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 Table XIV: São Paulo s Sugarcane Farms Compared to Those of Other Activities by Groups of Total Area Sizes. Categories and Size 1985 1995 Variação 1995/1985 Groups (Ha) Total Number of Farms Total Number of Farms Total Number of Farms (1) TOTAIS Menos de 10 Ha... 483.657 100.198 4,8 307.645 65.303 4,7 0,64 0,65 0,98 10 a menos de100 Ha... 4.878.042 143.763 33,9 4.116.864 119.209 34,5 0,84 0,83 1,02 100 a menos de 1000 Ha. 9.253.555 35.307 262,1 8.188.570 31.162 262,8 0,88 0,88 1,00 1000 Ha e Mais... 5.629.429 2.590 2.173,5 4.756.125 2.086 2.280,0 0,84 0,81 1,05 TOTAL (*)... 20.244.683 281.858 71,8 17.369.204 217.760 79,8 0,86 0,77 1,11 (2) Sugarcane (**)... Menos de 10 Ha... 6.954 1.094 6,4 14.531 1.513 9,6 2,09 1,38 1,51 10 a menos de100 Ha... 242.521 6.001 40,4 353.709 9.365 37,8 1,46 1,56 0,93 100 a menos de 1000 Ha. 1.127.480 3.560 316,7 1.199.174 4.225 283,8 1,06 1,19 0,90 1000 Ha e Mais... 1.217.268 540 2.254,2 1.697.313 522 3.251,2 1,39 0,97 1,44 TOTAL... 2.594.223 11.195 231,7 4.556.875 15.718 289,9 1,76 1,40 1,25 (3) Other Activities... Menos de 10 Ha... 476.703 99.104 4,8 293.114 63.790 4,6 0,61 0,64 0,96 10 a menos de100 Ha... 4.635.521 137.762 33,6 3.763.155 109.844 34,3 0,81 0,80 1,02 100 a menos de 1000 Ha. 8.126.075 31.747 256,0 6.989.396 26.937 259,5 0,86 0,85 1,01 1000 Ha e Mais... 4.412.161 2.050 2.152,3 3.058.812 1.564 1.955,8 0,69 0,76 0,91 TOTAL... 17.650.460 270.663 65,2 14.104.478 202.135 69,8 0,80 0,75 1,07 (1) Source: IBGE - Table 1 of the Censos Agropecuários - 1985 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 Table XV: Paraná s Sugarcane Farms Compared to Those of Other Activities by Groups of Total Area Sizes. Categories and Size 1985 1995 Variação 1995/1985 Groups (Ha) Total Number of Farms Total Number of Farms Total Number of Farms (1) TOTAIS Menos de 10 Ha... 1.129.730 229.015 4,9 792.119 154.620 5,1 0,70 0,68 1,04 10 a menos de100 Ha... 5.843.827 212.247 27,5 5.405.907 188.305 28,7 0,93 0,89 1,04 100 a menos de 1000 Ha. 6.017.737 23.425 256,9 6.550.666 25.432 257,6 1,09 1,09 1,00 1000 Ha e Mais... 3.707.566 1.548 2.395,1 3.197.940 1.450 2.205,5 0,86 0,94 0,92 TOTAL (*)... 16.698.860 466.235 35,8 15.946.632 369.807 43,1 0,95 0,79 1,20 (2) Sugarcane (**)... Menos de 10 Ha... 2.108 373 5,7 3.243 309 10,5 1,54 0,83 1,86 10 a menos de100 Ha... 37.509 1.029 36,5 45.394 882 51,5 1,21 0,86 1,41 100 a menos de 1000 Ha. 118.139 399 296,1 180.623 426 424,1 1,53 1,07 1,43 1000 Ha e Mais... 100.261 46 2.179,6 262.562 40 6.543,2 2,62 0,87 3,00 TOTAL... 258.017 1.847 139,7 556.786 1.591 349,9 2,16 0,86 2,50 (3) Other Activities... Menos de 10 Ha... 1.127.622 228.642 4,9 788.876 154.311 5,1 0,70 0,67 1,04 10 a menos de100 Ha... 5.806.318 211.218 27,5 5.360.513 187.423 28,6 0,92 0,89 1,04 100 a menos de 1000 Ha. 5.899.598 23.026 256,2 6.370.043 25.006 254,7 1,08 1,09 0,99 1000 Ha e Mais... 3.607.305 1.502 2.401,7 2.935.378 1.410 2.082,0 0,81 0,94 0,87 TOTAL... 16.440.843 464.388 35,4 15.454.811 368.151 42,0 0,94 0,79 1,19 (1) Source: IBGE - Table 1 of the Censos Agropecuários - 1985 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 Table XVI: Brazil's Main Crops Agriculture Employment Opportunities For Non-Specialized Labour Agricultural 1990 1995 2000 Products Harvested (*) EHA For Labour Harvested (*) EHA For Labour Harvested (*) EHA For Labour Soya Beans 11.487 0,02 229.740 11.675 0,02 233.500 13.657 0,03 409.710 Corn 11.394 0,10 1.139.400 13.946 0,10 1.394.600 11.890 0,09 1.070.100 Beans 4.680 0,11 514.800 5.006 0,12 600.720 4.333 0,15 649.950 Sugarcane 4.273 0,27 1.153.710 4.559 0,24 1.094.160 4.805 0,12 576.600 Rice 3.947 0,12 473.640 4.374 0,13 568.700 3.665 0,15 549.750 Coffee 2.909 0,42 1.221.780 1.870 0,41 766.620 2.268 0,31 703.080 Wheat 2.681 0,01 26.810 995 0,01 9.950 1.139 0,01 11.390 Cassava 1.938 0,55 1.065.900 1.946 0,54 1.050.840 1.709 0,35 598.150 Cotton 1392 0,27 375.840 1.104 0,27 298.080 802 0,25 200.500 Oranges 913 0,19 173.470 856 0,24 205.440 856 0,16 136.960 Total (**) 45.614 0,14 6.375.090 46.331 0,13 6.222.610 45.124 0,11 4.906.190 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 Table XVII: Pernambuco's Main Crops Agriculture Employment Opportunities For Non-Specialized Labour Agricultural 1990 1995 2000 Products Harvested (*) EHA (**) For Labour Harvested (*) EHA (**) For Labour Harvested (*) EHA (**) For Labour Sugarcane 467,3 0,52 242.996 417,8 0,51 213.078 304,5 0,16 48.720 Beans 231,0 0,11 25.410 346,3 0,12 41.556 273,0 0,17 46.410 Corn 203,7 0,15 30.555 317,3 0,16 50.768 238,4 0,18 42.912 Cassava 119,6 0,71 16.995 89,2 0,71 63.332 40,6 0,55 22.330 Bananas 30,9 0,55 84.916 34,8 0,55 19.140 36,9 0,44 16.236 Coconuts 11,7 0,21 2.457 12,1 0,21 2.541 9,5 0,13 1.235 Rice 7,6 0,14 1.064 5,1 0,14 714 4,0 0,31 1.240 Mangoes (2,5) ND ----- (3,4) ND ----- (6,4) ND ---- Cashew Fruits 4,6 0,10 4.600 7,5 0,09 675 7,2 0,23 1.656 Coffee 14,5 0,33 4.785 8,3 0,33 2.739 5,7 0,35 1.995 Total (***) 1.090,9 0,38 413.778 1.238,4 0,32 394.543 919,8 0,2 182.734 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 Table XVIII: Main Crops of Alagoas Agricultural Employment Opportunities For Non-Specialized Labour Agricultural 1990 1995 2000 Products Harvested (*) EHA (**) For Labour Harvested EHA (**) For Labour Harvested EHA (**) For Labour Sugarcane 558,6 0,52 290.472 449,7 0,51 229.347 448,1 0,16 71.696 Beans 94,4 0,11 10.384 148,1 0,12 17.772 82,1 0,17 13.957 Corn 50,8 0,15 7.620 96,0 0,16 15.360 57,1 0,18 10.278 Tobacco 26,6 0,64 17.024 23,7 0,64 15.168 17,7 0,78 13.806 Cassava 20,0 0,71 14.200 35,2 0,71 24.992 25,1 0,55 13.805 Coconuts 15,8 0,21 3.318 13,0 0,21 2.730 15,1 0,13 1.963 Cotton 8,0 0,25 2.000 8,9 0,28 2.492 6,2 0,38 2.355 Rice 7,7 0,14 1.078 9,2 0,14 1.288 6,4 0,31 1.984 Bananas 5,5 0,55 3.025 3,6 0,55 1.980 4,1 0,44 1.804 Oranges 0,5 0,90 450 0,8 0,89 712 3,8 0,36 1.368 Total (***) 787,9 0,44 349.571 788,2 0,4 311.841 665,7 0,2 133.016 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 Table XIX: São Paulo s Main Crops Agriculture Employment Opportunities For Non-Specialized Labour Agricultural Products 1990 1995 2000 Harves Harves ted ted Deman d For Labour Harvested (*) EHA (**) For Labour (*) EHA (**) For Labour (*) EHA (**) Sugarcane 1.812,0 0,14 253.600 2.258,9 0,13 293.697 2.484,8 0,08 198.784 Corn 1.151,1 0,02 23.022 1.243,3 0,02 24.866 1.084,4 0,02 21.688 Soya Beans 561,2 0,02 11.224 530,0 0,02 10.500 535,0 0,02 10.700 Oranges 722,9 0,08 57.832 620,8 0,08 49.640 609,5 0,09 54.855 Coffee 567,0 0,33 187.110 241,4 0,36 86.904 211,6 0,32 67.712 Beans 367,6 0,09 33.084 229,8 0,09 20.682 212,8 0,09 19.152 Sorghum 45,7 0,01 457 27,5 0,01 275 72,7 0,01 727 Cotton 300,8 0,18 54.144 179,6 0,17 30.532 65,8 0,09 5.922 Peanuts 58,5 0,10 5.850 79,1 0,09 7.119 85,1 0,08 6.808 Wheat 200,0 0,01 2.000 23,8 0,01 238 14,0 0,01 140 Total (***) 5.786,8 0,11 628.323 5.434,2 0,11 524.215 5.375,7 0,07 386.488 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 Table XX: Main Crops of Paraná Agricultural Employment Opportunities For Non-Specialized Labour Agricultural 1990 1995 2000 Products Harvested EHA For Harvested EHA For Harvested EHA For (*) (**) Labour (*) (**) Labour (*) (**) Labour Soya Beans 2.257,6 0,01 22.576 2.206,2 0,01 22.061 2.858,0 0,02 57.160 Corn 2.079,8 0,08 166.384 2.699,3 0,08 215.944 2.230,0 0,03 66.900 Wheat 1.197,1 0,01 11.971 636,5 0,01 6.365 485,9 0,01 4.859 Beans 550,6 0,10 55.060 513,9 0,09 46.251 540,9 0,06 32.454 Cotton 490,0 0,23 112.700 282,8 0,23 65.044 54,1 0,26 14.066 Coffee 426,4 0,44 187.616 36,7 0,66 24.222 142,1 0,28 39.788 Sugarcane 159,4 0,19 30.286 255,6 0,19 48.564 327,2 0,10 32.720 Rice 151,0 0,16 24.160 99,7 0,16 15.952 79,8 0,03 2.394 Cassava 101,9 0,21 21.399 144,4 0,22 31.768 182,9 0,17 31.093 Oats (31,5) (ND) ---- (99,1) (ND) ---- (112,4) (ND) ---- Total (***) 7.413,8 0,09 632.152 6.875,1 0,4 476.171 6.900,9 0,04 281.434 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