Content uploaded by Jeannette van de Steeg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jeannette van de Steeg on Jan 16, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal ofAgriculture in the Tropics
and Subtropics
Volume 103, No. 1,2002,pp,47
- 59
The Land Resource
Information and Suitability System
for FamilyAgriculture (LARISSA)' developed
for the
Brazilian agrarian reform
G. Sparovek 1",
M, Cooper l,D, Dourado-Neto 1,
R'F. Maule 2,
P' Vidal-Torrado l,
L,F. de M. Pimenta 3, S.P, Martins 3,
E.R. Teramoto 1,
A.C. Silva a,
J. Van de Steeg
s, E. Schnug s
Keywords: Land evaluation, agrarian refonn, family agriculture, Brazil
Abstract
Family Agriculture (FA), supported by the Brazilian govemment and society, is
recognized as essential for rural life-quality improvement and for the maintenance of
natural resources. FA competes for the same natural and regional resources as
commercial agricultural production. Without support the commercial production would
tend to withdraw FA from the most suited regions. FA has important differences when
compared to commercial agriculture. The consumption-driven propose ofFA rather than
the market-orientation of commercial agriculture influences the factors that may
improve or constrain production. In FA high yields are usually substituted by crop
quality standards and monocultural systems by diversified production. The
macroeconomic scenario that drives the markets for most commercial crops plays a
minor role in FA. The maintenance of natural resources, integrating the forest with the
agricultural ecosystems, and tle reduction in the use ofpesticides and fedilizers are other
features that usually distinguish FA. Land evaluation procedures targeting the promotion
ofFA should consider its specihcity. The currently adopted methods used to support
Brazilian governmental programs are based on tools developed for commercial
agriculture. These methods are not sufficiently sensitive to farrners' traditional
knowledge, crop quality and diversity importarce, consumption'driven character and
local markets, which are important factors in FA production' The non-consideration of
these issues during the planning stage is frequently impairing FA's development.
LAzuSSA is an expert system composed of a computer program, field procedure
1
University ofSäo
Paulo, CP
9, 13418-900,
Piracicaba
(SP),
Brzil
2
FAO/INCRA,
SBN-Edificio
Paläcio do
Desenvolvimento,
70057-900,
Brasllia
(DF)' Brazil
: Ministry of Agrarian
Development,
Esplanada
dos
Ministörios,
Bloco A, 70043-900,
Brasilia
(DF),
Brazil
4
University
of Alfenas,
CP 23, 37130-000,
Alfenas
(MG),
Brazil
s Federal Agricultural
Research Center
(FAl), Bundesallee,
50 D-381
16, Braunschweig,
Germany
* Conesponding
Author
guidelines and training course designed for land evaluation for the Brazilian FA
production. LARISSA may improve the efficiency of the govemmental programs,
help
driving decisions and guide research for FA development. By developing FA, rural
poverty is decreased
and life-quality improved by a production system that is more labor
intensive and environmentallv friendlv.
I Introduction
Land evaluation may be defined as the process
ofassessment
of land performance
when
used for a specified purpose, or as the methods employed to explain or predict the use
potential oflaad (Rossrrrn, 1996).
The former land capability classification (KuNGEBTEL
and MoNrcolcny, 1961)
was followed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations @AO) "Framework for Land Evaluation', (FAO, 1976) and recently by
a more quartitative approach, including social and economic variables in prediction
models (Vnn DTEeEN
e/ a1.,1991). The current trend is to quantitatively focus on
alternative options from which the stakeholders can choose, rather than on single
clearcut solutions (Bouva, 1997); include sustainability indicators as part of the
evaluation procedures (Hurur, 2000) and increase the adoption of information
techlologies.
The Brazilian society has recognized the importance of access
to land for poor rural
landless families and the direct support of FA as efficient towards promoting income
equality distribution and improving rural life-quality. This recopition is expressed by
actions of organized social movements e.g. Landless Rural Workers Movement (MST).
Also govemment's direct investments e.g. the National Institute for Colonization and
Agrarian Reform (INCRA) with an annual budget equivalent to 1.2 x l0 s US$ for
Agrarian Reform (AR) settling 75 x 10 I families per year on 9 x 10 e
ha of unproductive
land (Grsquls and VEnoE, 1998; INCRA, 2000) and the National program for
Strengthening of Family Agriculture (PRONAF) designating propitious credits
(2.0 x 10 e
US$ y-1)
for FA (INCRA,2000); are sipificant indicators of FA supports.
In FA hputs such as chemical fertilizers, pesticides,
genetically improved material are
usually substituted
by labor or cultural values (e.g. manual weed control), biodiversity
(e.g. multicultural systems instead ofmonoculture reducing the need ofpesticides) and
genetic material focusing on crop quality (e.g. taste and healthiness instead of
productivity). FA is also more friendly to the maintenance
of the forests. In commercial
farming, the forest is usually considered
as a non-productive resource that will have a
market value o4ly if converted to timber. The preservation of the forest in commercial
farming has shown to be effective only with legal support and swveillance (Leunetct ef
aI.,200I). In the Brazilian Agrarian Census 1995/6 data, GuANzrRoLr and CARDTM
(2000) identified 4,139,369 FA farms. These represented
85 Vo
of the total number of
farms occupying 30 oÄ
of the Brazilian farming area. FA was also responsible for 38 %o
ofthe agrarian net production and received 25 %o ofthe credits. From the total Brazilian
rural population of 34 million people in 1996, 14
million (41 %o)were occupied with FA.
The Brazilian Federal Constitution defines that properfy has social functions. This
principle applied to the agrarian sector attributes the Union to expropriate, for social
benefit, land that does not fulfill its social functions. Excluded from expropriation are all
small farms and large farms that are productive. A large farm may be considered as
48
unproductive (i.e. not in accordance to its social firnctions) based
on the identification of
inadequate land use. In this case,
the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian
Reform (INCRA) may acquire the area and divide it in small units of 25-100 ha that are
refrnancedunder attractive conditions to landless families. The main issue of the AR
process, and probably one of its weakest points, is the prediction of the future
performance
of FA. If FA fails to improve, the ARpwpose for giving social functions to
land will not be achieved. This prediction is currently regulated by a law described in tle
Normative Instruction 31 (INCRA/DF,1999). This instruction is based on land
capability classification (LCC) concepts
(Klingebiel and Montgomery, 1961),
one of the
first modern land evaluation tools developed by the United States Department of
Agriculture (IJSDA) to support decisions
on soil consewation in the 60s and 70s. LCC
considers only commercial high-input agricultwe and is entirely physically based. The
land capability classification is attractive due to its simplified class structffe. The most
suited land for annual crops is represented by class " I " following down to the land
unsuited for agriculture on class " VIII ". The advantage ofbeing easy to understand
makes LCC attractive for lawyers, courtjudges and bureaucrats who play a major role in
the AR process.
Although this advantage
is widely surpassed in importance by inherent
disadvantages. The most important is the non-consideration ofFA specificity, it is
conceptually designed for commercial high-input agricultwe and emphasizes only on
soil and landscape attributes, ignoring social, cultural and economic variables. The
importance of the planning stage in detecting constrails for the implementation of
agricultural land use is discussed by SMrH and McDoNero (1998) and is considered as
one of the main problems that explains tle unsuccessfulness in improving the Brazilian
AR (GurNzm.or-r,
et al-, 1999)
This paper describes the Land Resource Information and Suitability System for Family
Agriculture (LARISSA) that is an expeft system developed to support land eva.luation
decisions for the AR in substitution to the cunently used methods.
2 LARISSA's general description
Most data used to develop LARISSA were obtained during field work. From August,
1999 until July, 2000 part ofthe authors made 60 one-week
field trips visiting 150
settlement
projects covering the whole Brazilian territory. Soil and landscape relations to
land use
types and development
patterns
were observed.
Farmers, extensionists, regional
politicians, and researchers were interviewed. The reports resulting from theses surveys
were complemented
by data collected
in other localities. A second visit had the objective
to revise and discuss the initial report.
Land evaluation
for AR has to be operational
in a
wide range
ofconditions. Large remote
regions covered by forests with access only by boat in the Amazon, extreme semi-arid
climatic conditions in the northeastern
part ofBrazil and the industrialized subtropics
represented by the southern Brazilial areas are some examples
of this range. Flexibility
in relation to input data was a major concern during LARISSA's development. The
modules related to soil and landscape variables were designed to operate with
expeditious field surveys as described
by Brcxrr & Blr (19?8) for Land-System. The
Land-System procedures suggest that the landscape should be divided according to
topography, land use types or forest physiognomies using remote sense
tools. For each
49
mapping unit, the soils are described and sampled for analytical determinations. This
cartogaphic and sampling procedure is suggested to a) preserve
the "feeling-for-land"
tlat the evaluators have acquired during their professional life; b) allow expeditious and
low cost mapping to avoid the conflict between comprehensiveness
and availability
identified as a main problem for land evaluation by Pmr.r (1997); c) complement
cartographic mapping units with recent soil analytical data, pointed out by Oarnrrnrn el
al. (1996) as one of the most limiting factors of soil maps to support land use planning;
and d) allow the frled procedures
adoption with minimal training.
The regional conditions (RC) are pertinent to surrounding factors not related to land
qualities (LQ). LARISSA was also designedto operate these variables in a flexible form.
LARISSA is a modular computer progam. Two modules will receive data, one related
to the Supply of Land Qualities (SLQ) and the other conceming the Supply of Regional
Conditions (SRC). The list of input data for SLQ is shown in Table 1.
Intemal decision rules (e.g. SLQ Current Nutrient Availability shown in Table 2) or
simplified models (e.g. climatic data based on water balance calculations) convert the
SLQ and SRC input data into 9 LQ and 14 RC indicators as shown in Table 3.
The supplies from each indicator are rated in five restriction levels: i) not restricted (nr),
ii) little restricted (lr), iii) moderately restricted (mr), iv) restricted (r), and v) very
restricted (w).
The two input modules communicate with a database module that has information about
land use (LU). Each LU is recommended for a specifrc region and was observed
to be
successful
in FA during the field work for LARISSA's development. In this module, for
each LU the minimum demands of LQ and RC (DLQ or DRC) are defined. Also,
economic and productivity variables are part of this database (e.g. maximum and
minimum productivity, gross margin, spare capacity). This module was designed
to be
updated, considering that new land use options may arise and cost factors may change.
After providing the data for the SLQ and SRC modules the land evaluator may choose
between different LUs available for the region the project is located. For each choice an
analytical module will evaluate the compatibility of supplies and demands on a
quantitative base using a note system, provide economical and technical parameters
related to risk factors, define the minimum size of a farm to allow a target income and the
maximum price for acquiring the land for AR purpose.
Table 1: Variables used in LARISSA to calculate Supply of Land Qualities (SLQ).
Soil analvsis Soil momholoev Slope
0-20 and,50-70
cm depth
cation exchange capacity, base
saturation,
aluminum saturation,
sodium saturation,
electric conductivity, organic
matter,
clav content.
silt content
0-20 and 50-70 cm depth
depth,stoniness,drainage, steepness
presence
of stubs
)U
Table 2: Decision
rule
for the defrnition
of the supply
of current
Nutrient
Availability
Soil Base Saturation
(0-20
cm)
Yo CEC
I (0-20
cm) SOM
2
(0-20
cm) Restriction
3
mmol^ dm-3 g kg-l
>75
> /t
>75
>75
>75
>75
0-50
0-50
0-50
>30
10-30
<10
>50 >30
>50 10-30
>50 <10
tr
nr
1r
nr
nr
lr
5t-75
51-75
)l-l)
5l-75
)l-l)
5t-75
>50
>50 >30
10-30
>50 <10
m
nr
k
0-50
0-50
0-50
>30
10-30
<10
h
lr
mr
30-50
30-50
30-50
30-50
30-50
30-50
>50 >30 mr
10-30 r
>50 <10 vr
0-50 >30 r
>50
0-50 10-30 r
0-50 <10 vr
<30
<30
<30
<30
<30
<30
>50
>50
>50
>30
I 0-30
<10
vr
vr
vr
0-50
0-50
0-50
>30
10-30
<10
r
r
vr
I CEC
= soil
cation exchange
capacity
2 SOM
= soil
organic
matter
content
3 Restriction
level:
not restricted
: nr; little restricted
: lr; moderately
restricted
: mr;
restricted
: r; and
very
restricted
= vr
3 LARISSA's detailed
descriPtion
5l
only paxtially responsible for that. Probably, the fact that the production is strongly
consumption-driven accounts for a major role for this specificity. The farmers' family
will consume most of their Foduction and therefore not only quantity but quality will be
atarget. Quality has a strong cultural influence and pesticides and chemical fertilizers
usually do not match with its requirements. The FA farrners try to adapt to the natural
resowces
(soil fertility, climate) rather than change
them. Cycling of organic residues
or
organic fertilizers are used instead ofchemical sources ofnutrients. These are reasons for
tle importance oflQs related to the natural production capacity ofthe land in the case
OfFA.
Table 3: Land Qualities (LQ) and Regional Conditions (RC) considered
in LARISSA.
LQ
Current Nutrient Availability
Capacity of Maintaining Nutrient Availability
Nutrient Retention Capacity
Rooting Condition
Soil Water Holding Capacity
Soil Drainage
Erosion Risk
Mechani zation CaPacitY
Climate
Cooperative Work
Famrers Background
Neighborhood
Surroundings
Accessibility
Form
Accessibility
Distance
Water
Quality
Market
Initial Investment
Loan
Processilg
Technical
Assistance
Electricity Supply
Irrigation
The other LQs were soil drainage, erosion risk and mechaaization capacity. Soil
drainage is difficult to amend, so it will permanently influence crop production. In most
cases
defrciency in drainage is a limiting factor, but in others (e.g. flooded rice) it may be
essential. The erosion risk, evaluated by soil texture, depth and slope identiff soil's
overexploration and degradation potentials. Mechanization is defined according to
animal and mechanical traction. The mechanical traction may not be importalt at the
beginning oftho development of a FA settlement project but, the farmers are inclined to
substitute field operations done manually by machines. Mechanization may be used as an
indicator of development potential.
3.2 The Supply of Regional Conditions (SRC) module
The RCs shown in Table 3 are mostly described by definitions as shown in Table 4 for
farmers background and neighborhood. The exceptions are accessibility form,
accessibility distance, electricity supply where quantitative threshold values defrne the
restriction level. The RCs definitions should also be linked to a quaatitative decision
criteria. But in this case, the sources of information and the condition each region will
have to reach these defrnitions will be extremely variable. Detailed economic analysis
52
Table 4: Concepts
for the definition ofrestrictions for the Supply ofRegional
Condition (SRC) Farmers
Background and SRC- Neighborhood used
in LARISSA.
SRC-Farmers
Background Restriction I
The farmers are familiar with the proposed land use. They developed the ff
same activity in the same
region as lessors or independent
producers.
The farmers are familiar with the production technologr and the local
commercial chains.
The farmers are familiar with the proposed
land use. They developed
the k
same activity in another region as lessors or independent producers. The
farmers will have to adapt to local production and commercial
conditions.
The farmers are familiar with the proposed land use. They developed the mr
same activity as employees and are familiar only with production
technology. They are not familiar with planning the activity and with
commercial asoects.
The fanners know similar agricultural systems but never developed the r
soecific land use.
The proposed land use is completely unknown for the farmers.
SRC-Neighborhood
The neighborhood ofthe Settlement
Project (SP) is composed
ofother nr
SPs that have improved and developed. Cooperative work with the
neiehbors is expected.
The neighborhood is composed
of other recently created
SPs that may k
work in a cooperative and connected
way.
The neighborhood is not composed
ofother SPs, but small farms based lnr
operating on family agriculture exist regionally. No hostilities in relation
to Agrarian Reform (AR) are expected and the a cooperative and
connected work between
neishbors is feasible.
The neighborhood of the SP is composed
of commercial farms. No r
hostilities in relation to AR are expected.
There is little possibility of
integrated and cooperative
work with the neighbors.
The neighborhood ofthe SP is composed
oflarge commercial farms. vr
Hostilities in relation to AR ate foteseen.
There is no possibility of
integrated and cooperative work with the neighbors.
1 Restriction level: not restricted = nr; little restricted
: lr; moderately
restricted
: mr;
restricted
: r; and very restricted: w
and social surveys
will support the decisions
in some cases
and in othel remote regions
the opinion of the land evaluator
will define the majority of the variables.
The RCs can be grouped according to their objectives. Cooperative work and farmers
background are essential for more specialized crop production. In the Brazilian AR
frequently the landless families are settled in regions far from their origins, so the lack of
knowledge about the new environment and crop management may be a restrictive factor
(Bnwo and MEDEIRoS, 1998). These
variables are less important for extensive
systems
(e.g. beef cattle production) when compared to cash crops or market-oriented
production. The same reasons were pointed out as important issues in other AR
conditions (WrcnrN, 1994).
The variables market, neighborhood surroundings, accessibility form and accessibility
distance will give the dimension of the difliculty for implementing FA regionally and its
potential for development. If the neighborhood and surroundilgs of the settlement
project are composed predominantly of other FA farms and no hostilities to AR are
expected, an integration or collaborative work may improve the new area rapidly. Access
and markets are essential for long term improvement of the FA and without that the area
will not surpass the subsistence level. Diflicult access and an hostile sunounding were
also identified as blportant factors toward evasions
ofsettlementprojects in Bräzil by
Bnwo and MEDEIRoS
(1998), frequently appointed in interviews during LARISSA's
development
and were also observed in other regions (Iorrn and Nnnroova, 2000).
Electricity was considered by FA farmers as important for life-quality. The access to
television, power tools and household electric equipment was frequently pointed as the
major difference of rural and urban life. The availability of water may also be a
restrictive factor for human and animal consumption specially in semi-arid regions.
Initial investment capacity and availability of loans are essential for the development of
market-oriented production. In its absence, the settlements have shown to hibemate for a
long time in a subsistence level. This was identified as a major cause for evasions in
settlement
projects by BRtrNo
and MEDEIRos
(1998).
The possibility of crop processing,
technical assistance
and irrigation are essential
for
more specialized products (e.g. horticulture, market-oriented fruits). The large
availability of labor in a settlement project makes it more competitive as commercial
systems
in labor intensive
processes.
These
products
depend on processing
the raw yield,
which usually requires special facilities and constant techniffil 4ssiglanss.
3,3 The Land Use Module (LQ
The LU module represents the dynamic module of LARISSA. The LUs are,
conceptually, ploduction systems based on FA that are suitable for a certain region. The
suitability criteria consider the adaptation to climatic conditions, the existence of
commercial chains
that demand tle products and the acceptance
ofthe products for the
consumption by the families. The identification of the LUs is based on well succeeded
FA experiences. The selection of the LUs was made during the field work for
LARISSA's development and following descriptions
of FA in several Brazilian regions
(RoMEtRo,
1998; Srlxr, 1998; Gueuznott et al.,1999; BrrrENcouRr and BßNc}n{r,
2000; Glncr.l, 2000). The LU module generates demands for LQ and RC named
Demand for Land Quality @LQ) and Demand for Regional Conditions (DRC). This
module was desiped to allow constant update, revision and enlargement.
3.4 The Analytical module
In this module, the qualitative levels of supplies and demands are first converted in
quantitative variables. A linear increase, with 1 representing the most restricted
condition (very restricted or w) up to 5 for the less restricted condition (not restricted oI
nr) is used for this conversion.
A percentage value is then calculated.
The value of 100%
will represent a condition in which all supplies are equal to the maximum value of 5, and
a percentage of 0 oÄ a condition in which all supplies are equal to I ' The suggested LU
will demand LQ aad RC the same way. These percentages are integfative indicators,
useful to position the settlement project in relation to the intensity of LU and suitability
for FA. A low percentage value for SLQ or SRC will indicate low suitability for FA
therefore, compatible only with LUs with low demands. The deviation between the
supplies and demands are also presented as percentage
positive or negative values. A
negative deviation will indicate that the demands surpass
the supplies resulting in a
unsuited development condition. A positive deviation will indicate that the supplies
surpasses
the demands of the LU resulting in a suited development condition. This may
also indicate a condition with the possibility of improvement or intensiftcation of the
selected
LU. A deviation close or equal to zero will indicate a suited condition but with
low possibility of improvement. The suitability, by comparing the supplies and demands
ofLQ and RC is the first step ofan evaluation procedure. The suited LU types are also
analyzed
for their economic feasibility.
For economic feasibility, the variables defined in the LU module are converted into
indicators (Table 5). The feasibility criteria are based
on the expected
minimum income
per family and the family's spare capacity. The spare capactty will indicate a maximum
am
ount of income to honor the debt payment and the maximum value to acquire the area,
ifAR is considered.
Two conditions are required for a sP to be considered
economically
feasible. The first condition is that tle amual family spare capacity must be equal or
higher than the value ofthe annual debt paynent for the land. The payment ofthe land
should not interfere with the families income needed for production and subsistence,
therefore it,s based on spaxe
capacity
and not on total income. The second condition is
that the expected minimum monthly income per family must be higher than the
minimum regionally defined income. Once the economic feasibility criteria are attained,
LARISSA calculates
the ideal number of families to be settled
and the size of the 10t each
ofthem will receive.
The definition of the maximum expropriation value is an important feature of LARISSA
for the AR process. The value of agricultural land, when analyzed on a theoretical basis
(oLARTETA,
2000) is certainly a controversial issue.
But for practical reasons,
LARISSA
had to incorporate a quantitative land value. The currently used methods define the value
of land as a function of land capability classes
and recent sale values surveyed locally.
The restrictions of this procedure are a weak relation of land capability and land value
(DeuosoN, 1989) and absence
ofguarantee that the FA system will provide enough
iacome to allow the farmer honor his mortgage u:rder current market prices. Margin
values as used
by LARISSA, which are
based
on cash
in- and out-flow calculations, are
considered
as
simple, but valid methods for economic land evaluation (ROSSITER, 1996).
))
Table 5: Economic variables defined in the Land Use module (upper part) and the
indicators calculated by LARISSA's analytical module (lower part).
Variable Description Unit Sussested
Value
AR Net [ea of the wtt]emmt project ha
VD Expropridiol value n$.
NS Number of settlem@t pqsoN
Tp Time for paying the dea yeü 20
Pm MarketPriceoftheproductsfiomlu R$/produotiotruit
P Productivity ofthe LU Production uiyyed
Lo Lom cost forproduction ofthe LU R$Aa yea
S Seryice costs forFoduction ofthe LU R$/ha yer
I Interest cost for productiotr oftle LU R$/ha yed
Sc Spde capeity ofthe netmtrgn rate
(0-1) 0 3
Tip Timetostartpayingthenea yed 3
NImin Minim@ oet iloome ffi e&h setded R$/ month
Indicator DescriDtion Unit Formula
ArS Area for eaoh settled ha AR/NS
TVS Total value for each settled R$ EV/NS
AP Amual payEetrt for €ch settled R$/yee EV/(NS*(Tp-Tip))
Np Netprofitofthelu R$Aayea (Pn*P)-(Lo+S+D
Cp Gross profit ofthe LU R$/ha yea Pm*P
Co Cash flow out ofthe LU R$/ha yea Lo+S+I
Sc Spdeoapacityforeachsttled R$/yeil (PE*P-(Lo+S+I))*So*ARNS
EVAa Expropriatiotrvaluepqheotare R$Aa EV/AR
EVmd Muimm expropriatiod value R$ (pmrp-(I-o+S+D)*Sc*(Tp-Tip)*AR
Evmax/ha Muimm expropriatior ralue per ha RS/ha (Pn*p-(Lo+S+D)i Sc*(Tp-Tip)
Mexp Expeoted net ilcome for each settled R$/moath (pm*p-(Lo+S+I))*AW(12*NS)
' R$: Reais
(Brazilian
currency)
3.5 Outputs
The reports
provided
by LARISSA have
a standard
format and are automatically
generated.
The
advantage ofthis procedure
is a significant
reduction
in the time needed
for
bweaucratic oflice
work. This is essential to compensate
the field work that has
been
increased
as compared to the currently adopted
methods.
Another advantage of
standardized output
formats is to easier understand
and
compare the evaluations. This is
important
due to the fact that the final decision on acquiring land
for AR is a direct
responsibility
of the Minister,
thus centralized
on a small staff that has to analyze,
compare, and decide among the 3,000 annual reports considering that only
approximately 20
% ofthe surveyed
areas
are effectively
used for AR.
56
4 Conclusions
LAzuSSA is a land evaluation expert system for family agriculture based production
designed specifically for the Brazilian agrarian reform.
This specific design allows more precise and objective land evaluation without
increasing
the need or skill for human or fmancial resources.
LARISSA considers physically based variables (Land Qualities) and socio-economic
condition (Regional Conditions) for evaluating regionally feasible land use types.
This more comprehensive and specific design as compared with the currently adopted
methods,
may reduce
misevaluation problems.
Misevaluation problems frequently impair the development of family agriculture or
result in the legal obstruction ofthe agrarian
reform process.
5 Acknowledgements
This project was sponsored by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian
Reform (INCRA) and coordinated by the University of Säo Paulo (USP)'
Zusammenfassung
Das Land Ressourcen Informations- und Eignungsprüfungs- System für
kleinbäuerliche Landwirtschaft (LARISSA) entwickelt für die Umsetzung der
brasilianischen Agrarreform.
Kleinbäuerliche Landwirtschaft (FA für "Family Agriculture") ist notwendiger
Bestandteil der Lebensqualität im ländlichen Raum und ebenso notwendig ftir die
Erhaltung natürlicher Ressourcen und wird daher von Staat und Gesellschaft in Brasilien
untentützt. FA konkurriert mit industriell orientierter Landwirtschaft um die gleichen
Ressourcen, aber hat in diesem Wettstreit ohne staatliche Unterstützung nur geringe
chancen. FA unterscheidet sich in wesentlichen Merkmalen von industrieller
Landwirtschaft, was bei der Auswahl geeipeter standorte ff.ir FA zu berücksichtigen ist.
Die bisher in Brasilien benutzten Systeme zur Landbewertung sind speziell auf die
Belange industrieller Landwirtschaft abgestimmt und benachteiligen dadurch die
Entwicklung von FA. lnsbesondere
werden Faktoren wie traditionelle Kenntnisse u:rd
Methoden, Produktqualit?it und Diversifikation unzureichend oder nicht berücksichtigt.
LARISSA (Land Resource Information and suitability System for Family Agriculture)
besteht aus einem rechlergestiltzten Expertensystem und Richtlinien und
Trainingskursen fi.ir die Ansprache von Land und Standorten. Mit Hilfe von LARISSA
verbessert und beschleunigt sich der administrative Evaluierungs- und
Entscheidungsprozess der Land- und Standortbeurteilung, womit wiederum Armut im
l?indlichen Raum effizienter abgebaut werden kann.
schlilsselwörter: Land Bewertung, Agrarreform, Kleinbäuerliche Landwirtschaft,
Brasilien
6 References
BEcKET P.H.T. and S.W. Brt, 1978: Use of soil and land-system maps to provide soil
information in Australia. Division of soil technical paperNo 33, CSIRO.
BrrrENcouRr G.A. and V. BrANcHrNr,
2000: Family agriculture in agrarian reform
areas: study of production systems in Boa Ventura (pR) and euilombo (SC)
(South region) INCRA/FAO, 72 pp. (in Portuguese)
BoUMA J., 7997: T\e role of quantitative approaches
in soil science when interacting
with stakeholders.
Geoderma 78, l-12.
BRUNo R. and L. Msosrnos, 1998: Percentage and causes of evasions in rural
settlement projects. Project UTF/BRA/036/BRA, 5a pp. (in portuguese).
Available under http://www.INCRA.gov.brlfaol
Cnrxrrs V.R.N., 1991: The Zambian land evaluation system (ZLES). Soil Use and
Management T
, 2l-30.
DAvIDSoN
D.4., 1989: The influence of laad capability on rural land sales.
A case-
study in Rentewshire, Scotland. Soil Use
and Management 5,3g-44.
FAO, 1976: A framework for land evaluation. Soils
Bulletin 32.Food, and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
FAo, 1983: Guidelines: land evaluation for rainfed agriculture. soils Bulletin 52. Food
and Agriculture Orgaaization of the United Nations, Rome.
FAo, 1985: Guidelines: laad evaluation
for irrigated agriculture. soils Bulletin 55.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
GÄRcrA D.P., 2000: Family agriculture in agrarian reform areas: study of production
systems in Campos Goytacazes (RJ), pontal do paranapanema, Alta
Araraquarense and Promissäo (SP) (Southeast
region). INCRA,4AO, 69 pp. (in
Portuguese).
Available under http://www.INCRA.gov.brlfao/
GAseuEs
J.G. and C.M.V. VEnoB, 1998: Thirty years of Federal investments in
agrarian politics. (INCRA/FAO), 60 pp. (in portuguese). Available under
http :i/wrarw.
INCRA. gov.brlfaol
GuANzrRoLr
C.E. ,q.No
S.E. DE C.S. Can_onr,
2000: The new picture of family
agriculture. The rediscovered Brazil. INCRA/FAO, 74 pp. (in portuguese).
Available under h@://www.INCRA.gov.brifaol
GuANzrRoLr
C.8., BrrrENcor,Rr G.A., CAsrrLHos D.S.B oB, BrANcHrNr
V. and H.B.C
DA srlvA, 1999: Mail factors that influence the development ofagrarian reform
settlements in Brazil. INCRA/FAO, 62 pp. (in portuguese). Available under
http ://www.INCRA.gov.br/faol
Gurrvzinolr c.E., Fnrrres A. and p.A. DAvrEs, 1999: Family agriculture in agrarian
reform areas: study of production systems in the state of Maranhäo (Northeast
region). INCRA/FAO, 67 pp. (in portuguese). Available under
http://www.INCRA.gov.brlfaol
HURNI H., 2000: Assessing sustainable land management (SLM). Agriculture,
Ecosystems
and Erwironment 81, 83-92.
INCRA, 2000: Balance 1999 - Agrarian refonn and family agriculture. INCRA, 50 pp.
(in Portuguese)
INCRA/DF, 1999: Procedures of expropriation for social benefits. Normative
Instruction No 3 1. (in Portuguese)
58
IoEEE G. and T. Nr.Enpove, 2000: Areas of crisis in Russians
agriculture: A geographic
perspective. Post-Soviet
Geograplry and Economics 41, 288-305.
KLINGEBIEL
A.A. and P.H. MoNrcoMERY, 1961: Land Capability Classification'
USDA. Agricultural Handbook 210. US Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
LALRANCE W.F., CoCHRANE
M.A., BERGEN
S., FtenNsIor P.M', DELAMÖNICA
P.,
BAIBER C., D'ANGELo S. and T. FsRNeNDss,
2001: The Future ofthe Brazilian
Amazon. Science
291, 438-439
OBERTHüR
T., DosnRMANN
A. and H.U. NEUE, 1996: How good is a reconnaissance
soil map for agtonomic purposes
? Soil Use and Management 12'33-43.
OLARTETA
J.R., 2000: On the use value of land in agricultural production. Ecological
Economics
32,169-173.
Prepu C., 1997:
Planning sustainable
land management:
the hierarchy ofuser needs.
1ZC
Journal 3-4,223-228.
RoMEIRo
A., 1998: Family agriculture in agrarian reform ateas: study ofproduction
systems
in the region of Säo
Miguel de Guamä,
PA (North region)' INCRA/FAO,
65 pp. (in Portuguese)
RossIrER
D.G., 1996: A theoretical framework for land evaluation. Geoderma 72' 165'
190.
SurI S., 1998: Family agriculture in agrarian reform areas: study of production
systems
in tle Savanna
(Cerrado) region (Central East region). INCRA/FAO, 72
pp. (in Portuguese)
Sr\crs C.S. and G.T. MCDoNAI-D,
1998: Assessing the sustainability of agriculture at
the planning stage.
Journal ofEnvironmental Management 52, L5-37
Van Diepen C.A., Van Keulen H., Wolf J. and J.A.A' Berkhout, 1991: Land
evaluation: from intuition to quantification. In: B.A' Stewart (Editor), Advances
in Soil Science.
Springer,
New York, pp. 139-204.
WEGREN
S.K., 1994: New perspectiYe on spatial patterns of agrarian-reform. A
comparison oftwo Russian
Oblasts.
Post-Soviet
Geography 35,455-481
